Generic Security Service Application Program Interface (GSS-API) Internationalization and Domain-Based Service Names and Name Type
draft-ietf-kitten-gssapi-domain-based-names-06
Discuss
Yes
(Sam Hartman)
No Objection
(Bill Fenner)
(Chris Newman)
(Cullen Jennings)
(Dan Romascanu)
(David Kessens)
(Jon Peterson)
(Lars Eggert)
(Lisa Dusseault)
(Mark Townsley)
(Ross Callon)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 06 and is now closed.
Ted Hardie Former IESG member
Discuss
Discuss
[Treat as non-blocking comment]
(2007-01-10)
Unknown
draft-ietf-kitten-gssapi-domain-based-names says: An application protocol might use a simple DNS domainname, such as "example.com" for naming, while another it might use the DNS domainname of the SRV RRs it queries (e.g., "_tcp._foo.example.com"), and yet another may use something that does not resemble a DNS domainname. The example is wrong; it should be _foo._tcp.example.com to meet the SRV syntax. The same document gives the following as the syntax for domain based names: <service> '@' <domain> '@' <hostname> It dos not cite the documents from which these are imported. Given that the introduction notes that the domain name is not necessarily an internet domain name, a clear citation is critical. Either this document or the cited document must make clear whether characters outside the ASCII range will be processed according IDNA, and that clarity should extend to both domain and hostname portions. I assume that both do, but the reader should not have to assume. The document has RFC 4033 as a normative reference, but the single citation appears to be informative.
Sam Hartman Former IESG member
(was Discuss, Yes, Discuss, Yes)
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Bill Fenner Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Brian Carpenter Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2007-01-10)
Unknown
Nothing to be said about internationalized names?
Chris Newman Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Cullen Jennings Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Dan Romascanu Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
David Kessens Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2007-01-11)
Unknown
2. While you are updating the document for other reasons, consider writing domain-based-name := <service> '@' <domain> '@' <hostname> in ABNF instead. 3. I agree with Ted that the spec needs to be clearer about what specific syntax is meant by <service> and by the other components. And i18n support or lack thereof should be explicitly mentioned.
Jon Peterson Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Lars Eggert Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Lisa Dusseault Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Mark Townsley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Ross Callon Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Russ Housley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2007-01-08)
Unknown
draft-ietf-kitten-krb5-gssapi-domain-based-names-03: The security considerations say: > > See [I-D.ietf-kitten-gssapi-domain-based-names]. > I would prefer an English sentence here. Perhaps: > > This specification does not intoduce an security considerations > beyond those discussed on [REF]. > This seems like a resonable way to go since draft-ietf-kitten-gssapi-domain-based-names is already a normative reference.