Skip to main content

Internationalization Updates to RFC 5280
RFC 8399

Yes

(Alexey Melnikov)
(Alissa Cooper)
(Eric Rescorla)
(Kathleen Moriarty)

No Objection

Alvaro Retana
(Benoît Claise)
(Deborah Brungard)
(Mirja Kühlewind)
(Suresh Krishnan)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 03 and is now closed.

Alvaro Retana No Objection

Warren Kumari No Objection

Comment (2017-10-10 for -03)
I had the same question as Spencer -- I'd be interested to know what lack of clarity was (so that people who were unclear, and read this will know what they might have guessed at!). I'm really not knowledgable in this field, so feel free to ignore if this would have been obvious to anyone reading 5280...

(Alexey Melnikov; former steering group member) Yes

Yes (for -03)

                            

(Alissa Cooper; former steering group member) Yes

Yes (for -03)

                            

(Eric Rescorla; former steering group member) Yes

Yes (for -03)

                            

(Kathleen Moriarty; former steering group member) Yes

Yes (for -03)

                            

(Adam Roach; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

No Objection (2017-10-18)
Thanks for addressing my DISCUSS.

(Ben Campbell; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2017-10-10 for -03)
-1.1: Please consider using the boilerplate from 8174. There's at least at least one use of a lower-case "should" (in 7.5.1, last paragraph).

(Benoît Claise; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -03)

                            

(Deborah Brungard; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -03)

                            

(Mirja Kühlewind; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -03)

                            

(Spencer Dawkins; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2017-10-05 for -03)
You folks would know best what's actually clear to your intended audience, but the use of  "provide clarity on the handling of" in the Abstract,

   These updates to RFC 5280 provide clarity on the handling of
   Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs) and Internationalized Email
   Addresses in X.509 Certificates.

and in the first paragraph of the Introduction,

   This document updates RFC 5280 [RFC5280].  The Introduction in
   Section 1, the Name Constraints certificate extension discussion in
   Section 4.2.1.10, and the Processing Rules for Internationalized
   Names in Section 7 are updated to provide clarity on the handling of
   Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs) and Internationalized Email
   Addresses in X.509 Certificates.

wasn't particularly helpful to me.  Are there a few words that would describe (at a high level) what the problem with RFC 5280 was, that required this document (I'm suggesting saying "so if you implemented RFC 5280, you can expect problems A and B, so you probably want to implement this specification as well", but in different words)?

(Suresh Krishnan; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -03)