Internationalization Updates to RFC 5280
RFC 8399
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 03 and is now closed.
Alvaro Retana No Objection
Warren Kumari No Objection
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
(Alissa Cooper; former steering group member) Yes
(Eric Rescorla; former steering group member) Yes
(Kathleen Moriarty; former steering group member) Yes
(Adam Roach; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
Thanks for addressing my DISCUSS.
(Ben Campbell; former steering group member) No Objection
-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
(Deborah Brungard; former steering group member) No Objection
(Mirja Kühlewind; former steering group member) No Objection
(Spencer Dawkins; former steering group member) No Objection
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