> RFC 6125 (and now 6125bis) are not documents about the definition or
enforcement of DNS naming rules, only about client-side matching of
service identifiers presented in X.509 certificates against the client's
conception of what the service ought to be (i.e., against a reference
identifier). I see no reason to expand the scope of 6125bis in the
direction you might be proposing.
I strongly agree.
The current PR,
https://github.com/richsalz/draft-ietf-uta-rfc6125bis/pull/50/files, does all
that's needed. (The diff is trivial to read)
_______________________________________________
Uta mailing list
Uta@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta
