On 8/4/23 7:22 AM, Lars Eggert via Datatracker wrote:
## Discuss
### Section 4.2, paragraph 4
```
Consider a SIP-accessible voice-over-IP (VoIP) server at the host
voice.example.edu servicing SIP addresses of the form
u...@voice.example.edu and identified by a URI of
<sip:voice.example.edu>. A certificate for this service would
include a URI-ID of sip:voice.example.edu (see [SIP-CERTS]) along
with a DNS-ID of voice.example.edu.
```
This has got to be the most pedantic Discuss ever,
Somehow I doubt it. :-)
but
AFAICT "example.edu" is not in fact a valid example domain, i.e.,
it's missing from
https://www.iana.org/assignments/special-use-domain-names/special-use-domain-names.xhtml
Six months ago we reached out to IANA about this after our document
shepherd noted that IDnits flagged the use of "example.edu" as a
problem. IANA's response (written by Kim Davies) was:
###
We operate example.edu in an identical manner to example.com/net/org, in
the spirit of RFC 2606 even though it is not one of the specified
domains there. I don't think there is a material risk if anyone wishes
to use example.edu in the same manner as other example domains.
We should probably look to memorialize that more formally, whether that
is in a revised RFC or some other mechanism. It would seem excessive to
update the RFC solely for that reason, maybe it can be packaged with
other updates at the appropriate time.
###
Therefore we concluded that it was acceptable to use "example.edu" in
this document, as we had previously done in RFC 6125 without incident.
Peter
_______________________________________________
Uta mailing list
Uta@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta
