Subject: [certid] Fw: Lars Eggert's No Objection ondraft-saintandre-tls-server-id-check-14: (with COMMENT)

From: "Peter Saint Andre" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 08:24:14 -0800

FYI.

----- Original Message -----
From: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
To: The IESG <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked] <[email-masked]>; [email-masked] <[email-masked]>; [email-masked] <[email-masked]>; [email-masked] <[email-masked]>
Sent: Mon Jan 17 04:40:22 2011
Subject: Lars Eggert's No Objection ondraft-saintandre-tls-server-id-check-14: (with COMMENT)

Lars Eggert has entered the following ballot position for
draft-saintandre-tls-server-id-check-14: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 1.5., paragraph 8:
>    These suggestions are not entirely consistent with all practices that
>    are currently followed by certification authorities, client
>    developers, and service providers.  However, they reflect the best
>    aspects of current practices and are expected to become more widely
>    adopted in the coming years.

  This seems to argue that the doc should be a BCP and not a PS?

Section 1.8., paragraph 28:
>       Transport Layer Security [TLS] negotiation; in this specfication

  Nit: s/specfication/specification/

Appendix A., paragraph 1:
>    recommendations in this specfication: email [EMAIL-SRV] and XMPP

  Nit: s/specfication:/specification:/

Section 7.2., paragraph 1:
>          Implemenations MUST NOT match any form of wildcard, such as a

  Nit: s/Implemenations/Implementations/

---

From: Matt McCutchen <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 15:59:36 -0500

>   This seems to argue that the doc should be a BCP and not a PS?

Round we go again...  AIUI, the document needs to be a PS because it
defines matching rules intended for incorporation into application
protocol PSes.  Correct?

-- 
Matt

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2011 10:41:04 -0700

> defines matching rules intended for incorporation into application

This will likely be discussed on the IESG telechat this week. However,
Cullen Jennings and Robert Sparks have me convinced that PS is correct.
Jeff and I discussed this with Alexey, too.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/