> IMHO these are > mostly small tweaks that we can fix in parallel with IESG feedback.
I agree. My company uses a URL-mangler on mail, so I'll trim as best I can. > 1. On DNS names starting with Labels: > > > historically this rule was also intended to apply to all labels I think we should just delete this sentence. "1foo" doesn't look like an IP address. > 2. On the Web example: How about replacing the second paragraph with this: Consider another website, which is reachable by a fixed IP address of `2001:db8::5c`. If the two sites refer to the same web service, then the certificate might also include this value in an IP-ID to allow clients to use the fixed IP address as a reference identity. As for the example, I added this: Likewise, if connecting to `https://[2001:db8::abcd]` , it would have a single IP-ID reference identifier of `2001:db8::abcd`. Which fixes the only IPaddr example I could find. > 3. Clarification on IP address matching I changed the reference: For an IP address that appears in a URI-ID, the "host" component of both the reference identity and the presented identifier must match. These are parsed as either an "IPv6address" (following {{!RFC3986, Section 3.2.2}}) or an "IPv4address" (following {{!IPv4}}). If the resulting octets are equal, the IP address matches. I agree with Peter that an explicit prohibition on link-local addresses isn't needed. Do you (strongly?) disagree? Anyhow, see https://github.com/richsalz/draft-ietf-uta-rfc6125bis/pull/103 _______________________________________________ Uta mailing list Uta@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta
