Hi Martin, > > The chairs think that the rough consensus is to limit the scope of the > > draft to domain names > > (with the pointer to the HTTP RFC as advise for protocols that support > > IP addresses). > > Is this the consensus of the chairs, or was there some discussion that I > missed?
We discussed this with Leif going back to the history of RFC 6125. The text explicitly limiting the scope of the document to domain names first appeared in draft-saintandre-tls-server-id-check-05 back in 2010 and was kept in RFC 6125. At the time the 6125bis draft was adopted there was no intention to widen the scope of RFC 6125. > I agree that there is no consensus to include changes, but I don't see any > input other than from Rich (and > I guess now yourself). Peter also participated in the discussion and from our point of view he supported Rich's position. We also waited a bit for others to chime in. Just to reiterate the chairs' position. We think that describing the handling of non-domain based names (like IP-ID) is a good idea, but at the same time we think that it would require quite a lot of changes to the current document, that would slow down its progress. We think that it's better to do this in a separate document and we actually will be happy if you volunteer to do it. Regards, Valery (for the chairs). _______________________________________________ Uta mailing list Uta@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta
