FYI, I created https://github.com/richsalz/draft-ietf-uta-rfc6125bis/issues/21 for this.
From: Brian Smith <br...@briansmith.org> Date: Tuesday, June 1, 2021 at 6:34 PM To: Rich Salz <rs...@akamai.com> Cc: "john.matts...@ericsson.com" <john.matts...@ericsson.com>, "uta@ietf.org" <uta@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [Uta] High level comments on draft-ietf-uta-use-san Salz, Rich <rsalz=40akamai....@dmarc.ietf.org<mailto:40akamai....@dmarc.ietf.org>> wrote: * Some sections mention "server" while other sections does not state anything, therefor applying to both client and server. I think the draft needs to be very clear on this point. * I saw that there was a discussion on client certs and that some client certs are built with CN and cannot be easily changed. Other uses of RFC 6125 like the Service Based Architecture in 3GPP 5G makes little or no difference between server and client when it comes to certificates. Thanks for reading it! The current plan is to produce a stand-alone 6125bis, rather than the current diff/patch document. I’ll try to make sure these issues are cleared up. I think we should avoid mentioning roles like "client" or "server" except non-normatively to emphasize that the spec would apply to both roles. What matters is that the entity's identity is a DNS name. Cheers, Brian
_______________________________________________ Uta mailing list Uta@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta
