On 8/4/23 10:55 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
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.
FYI, we've since changed all of the domain names to use .example...
https://github.com/richsalz/draft-ietf-uta-rfc6125bis/pull/108
Peter
_______________________________________________
Uta mailing list
Uta@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta
