> On 21 Apr 2021, at 20:25, Brian Smith <br...@briansmith.org> wrote: > > Eliot Lear <l...@cisco.com <mailto:l...@cisco.com>> wrote: > If this is scoped to dnsNames then I’m fine with it going forward as is. > Other names would be problematic. > > Could you be more specific as to what other names would be problematic and > list them explicitly? Here are the choices in a GeneralName: > > otherName [0] OtherName, > rfc822Name [1] IA5String, > dNSName [2] IA5String, > x400Address [3] ORAddress, > directoryName [4] Name, > ediPartyName [5] EDIPartyName, > uniformResourceIdentifier [6] IA5String, > iPAddress [7] OCTET STRING, > registeredID >
The principle here is long-lived names. I can’t imagine [2] and [7] being at issue. [1] and [4] are definitely in use in long-lived environment. I don’t know about the rest.
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ Uta mailing list Uta@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta
