On 2/1/23 1:37 AM, Valery Smyslov wrote:
Hi,
this message starts a one week consensus call for the following
proposed changes to draft-ietf-uta-rfc6125bis-10.
Thank you for sending the proposed text on list so that it can be
reviewed by the full range of working group participants.
The call
will end on Thursday, 9 February.
1. Section 2:
CURRENT:
2. An "internationalized domain name", i.e., a DNS domain name that
includes at least one label containing appropriately encoded
Unicode code points outside the traditional US-ASCII range and
conforming to the processing and validity checks specified for
"IDNA2008" in [IDNA-DEFS] and the associated documents. In
particular, it contains at least one U-label or A-label, but
otherwise may contain any mixture of NR-LDH labels, A-labels, or
U-labels.
PROPOSED:
2. "An "internationalized domain name", i.e., a DNS domain name that
includes at least one label containing appropriately encoded
Unicode code points outside the traditional US-ASCII range.
In particular, it contains at least one U-label or A-label, but
otherwise may contain any mixture of NR-LDH labels, A-labels,
or U-labels. Refer to [[Section 7.3]] for further details."
As Corey noted, it is confusing to refer to A-labels and U-labels if we
don't reference where those terms are defined (i.e., RFC 5890). For
instance, let's say we were to include something like the parentheical
clause below:
In particular, it contains at least one U-label or A-label, but
otherwise may contain any mixture of NR-LDH labels, A-labels,
or U-labels (these terms are defined in [IDNA-DEFS])."
At that point, because the definitions of these terms also imply the
appropriate processing of the underlying constructs, we're effectively
bringing back text that has been removed in this proposed change, namely:
and conforming to the processing and validity checks specified
for "IDNA2008" in [IDNA-DEFS] and the associated documents.
As Corey suggests in another message, an alternative approach would be
to reference CA/Browser Forum documents for canonical definitions of DNS
labels. This is not something I'm immediately comfortable with. At the
least, I'd need to think about the implications and I would very much
like to hear from those with relevant expertise.
Another approach would be to define new "technology-neutral" terms for
internationalized domain labels that would apply across both IDNA2008
and UTS-46. However, that feels very much out of scope for a document
about certificate validation.
Yet another approach would be to not define our terms, but that doesn't
seem like a good idea.
Thus I would prefer to retain the text in draft-ietf-uta-rfc6125bis-10.
Before replying about the text in Section 7.3, I need to do more thinking.
Peter
_______________________________________________
Uta mailing list
Uta@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta
