Hi, thanks to all for very interesting discussion (and thanks to John and Patrik for the explanation of the history of the problem).
Before issuing a consensus call, the first question is to Rob: can you propose concrete text changes that you want to see in the draft? Regards, Valery (for the chairs). > On 1/29/23 1:14 PM, Salz, Rich wrote: > > > >> It seems to me that It remains the case that this I-D is not the best > >> forum to litigate which U-labels are valid candidates for turning into > >> A-labels. Surely that belongs elsewhere. > > > > I agree that this kind of thing belongs in the DNS groups. > > > >> However it is that > > applications (or their libraries) turn U-labels into A-labels, this I-D > > describes how to match them against presented identifiers in > > certificates. > > > > *EXACTLY* > > > > Really all this draft says is "compare A labels." > > > > What else do we need to say? In my view nothing. > > Completely agree. > > And that's what draft-ietf-uta-rfc6125bis (even RFC 6125 before it) has > always done, with version -10 now including additional security > considerations and pointers to relevant specifications. > > Chairs, can you please initiate a consensus call on whether or not we > need to make changes to draft-ietf-uta-rfc6125bis on this topic? As far > as I can see, we have one person loudly in the rough, but a consensus > call would enable us to determine whether there is broader support for > modifications to the draft (which, I would like to point out, has > already completed two working group last calls). > > Peter > > _______________________________________________ > Uta mailing list > Uta@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta _______________________________________________ Uta mailing list Uta@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta
