Hi Peter, > On 7/6/22 12:41 AM, Valery Smyslov wrote: > > 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. > > I'm actually not opposed to adding support for IP addresses - my only > concern was performing major surgery on the document, so I wanted to > think about what changes we would need to make. At the time that Jeff > and I worked on RFC 6125, we were not aware of widespread use of IP > addresses in PKIX certificates. If the deployment situation has changed > (as indicated by RFC 9110), then I am open to adding IP-IDs to 6125bis.
OK, sorry for misinterpreting your response. > > 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, > > Martin sketched that out here: > > https://github.com/richsalz/draft-ietf-uta-rfc6125bis/pull/54/files > > I don't think it's *too* bad. > > > that would slow down its progress. > > What's the hurry? It's been 10+ years since we published RFC 6125, I > don't think a few more weeks will make a big difference. Then, we'd like to hear from WG members: whether the scope of rfc6125bis draft should be broaden to include non-domain names, like IP addresses (at the cost of delaying its publication) or this issue should be addressed in a separate document. Regards, Valery. > Peter _______________________________________________ Uta mailing list Uta@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta
