Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-lamps-eai-addresses-05.txt> (Internationalize

Folks,

I've just reviewed the IETF LC for this draft. Thanks all for
the comments and discussion which I think have thrown up some
real issues.

As of now, it is not clear to me that we have finished the
work with this one, at least the issues to do with name
constraints seem to me to call for some more WG consideration.

I think Russ (as lamps WG chair) has a similar opinion
that we're not done yet.

That said, I had put this on the March 16th IESG telechat
for consideration. If we do manage to reach a clear enough
consensus on a published revision to the draft in say the
next week then that schedule should still be fine. So I'd
encourage the authors and others who've commented to try
again and see if, in that timeframe, we can get to where
we're happy that the issues raised have been handled well
enough.

But, if it looks (as it does to me today) as if this'll take
a bit longer to figure out, then I figure the right thing to
do will be to let the lamps WG figure out how to proceed.
(And that'll mean that my successor as the responsible AD
for the lamps WG will handle further actions with the doc.)

Bottom line: if this isn't settled in the next week or so,
I'll take it off the March 16th IESG telechat and let the WG
continue the discussion.

Cheers,
S.

PS: To add to the name constraints discussion, I did wonder
if anyone really wants to use those. So for example, if we
defined the new name form so that certificate chains with
any name constraints at all and one of those names anywhere
are always treated as invalid, then would that cause any
real breakage? (It certainly would cause theoretical breakage,
but if that's all then I'd be ok with that:-)

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature