I have merged the first two big, boring, editorial PR’s and would like WG feedback on the quoted text below. Thanks.
From: "Salz, Rich" <rsalz=40akamai....@dmarc.ietf.org> Date: Wednesday, September 22, 2021 at 2:58 PM To: "uta@ietf.org" <uta@ietf.org> Subject: [Uta] 6125bis changes I have a PR that does a lot of editing of the “naming” section. It is mostly editorial work, also an update for cross-protocol Attacks. It is at https://github.com/richsalz/draft-ietf-uta-rfc6125bis/pull/24<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/github.com/richsalz/draft-ietf-uta-rfc6125bis/pull/24__;!!GjvTz_vk!Ebp3Qq-dElPSiy9T3jzr5vSIL8YWjrRUvcuoziiEZFNJ4K4baDcvocw8qxKz$> and is based on the existing PR to edit the “introduction” section. As with that, the diff is big and mostly boring so I encourage people to look at the PR. If you have problems or issues with looking at the GitHub content, get in touch and I will email you the diff. I also have a PR that edits the “designing protocols” section at https://github.com/richsalz/draft-ietf-uta-rfc6125bis/pull/25<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/github.com/richsalz/draft-ietf-uta-rfc6125bis/pull/25__;!!GjvTz_vk!Ebp3Qq-dElPSiy9T3jzr5vSIL8YWjrRUvcuoziiEZFNJ4K4baDcvoTi0isVB$>. This is a mix of editorial, and also using more MUST MAY SHOULD language. It’s short, so here is the complete new text. I would greatly appreciate comments on these, as well as https://github.com/richsalz/draft-ietf-uta-rfc6125bis/pull/23<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/github.com/richsalz/draft-ietf-uta-rfc6125bis/pull/23__;!!GjvTz_vk!Ebp3Qq-dElPSiy9T3jzr5vSIL8YWjrRUvcuoziiEZFNJ4K4baDcvoRkj7me0$>, which I mentioned last week. +This section defines how protocol designers should reference this document, +which MUST be a normative reference in their specification. The technology +MUST only use the identifiers defined in this document. Its specification +MAY choose to allow only one of them. + +If the technology does not use DNS SRV records to resolve the DNS domain +names of application services then its specification MUST state that SRV-ID +as defined in this document is not supported. Note that many existing +application technologies use DNS SRV records to resolve the DNS domain names +of application services, but do not rely on representations of those records +in PKIX certificates by means of SRV-IDs as defined in {{SRVNAME}}. + +If the technology does not use URI's to identify application services, then +its specification MUST state that URI-ID as defined in this document is not +supported. Note that many existing application technologies use URIs to +identify application services, but do not rely on representation of those +URIs in PKIX certificates by means of URI-IDs. + +A technology MAY disallow the use of the wildcard character in DNS names. If +it does so, then the specification MUST state that wildcard certificates as +defined in this document are not supported. # Representing Server Identi
_______________________________________________ Uta mailing list Uta@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta
