Re: E01: dname encoding rules proposal (ACTION-51)

Thomas Roessler schrieb:
> Let me try to summarize today's discussion on this:
>
> - Rich, Konrad and a bunch of others agreed that the \20 rule is
>   actually unnecessary and probably not implemented in practice.
>
> - Greg and I argued that that might very well be a change that was
>   desirable, but not one we should be doing right now.
>
> Part of the issue as I see it is that the DNAME encoding rules are
> actually referenced with a MUST from the WS-I BSP.  We don't know
> whether that's an oversight on their side or actually indicates that
> there are implementations of these rules that we don't know of.
>   
I'm wondering whether a new edition would effect their references, still 
referencing the first edition ?
> Therefore, I propose that we adopt the text as currently in the
> Editor's Draft, with a possible change of reference to 4514, thereby
> (a) leaving the conformance model as dodgy as it is right now, and
> (b) try to clean up the technical content to make it somewhat more
> understandable.
>   
(c) make those "doggy rules" legacy rules only valid for verification 
and put sound rules for signature creation into the next edition (as 
opposed to the next version).

Konrad

-- 
Konrad Lanz, IAIK/SIC - Graz University of Technology
Inffeldgasse 16a, 8010 Graz, Austria
Tel: +43 316 873 5547
Fax: +43 316 873 5520
https://www.iaik.tugraz.at/aboutus/people/lanz
http://jce.iaik.tugraz.at

Certificate chain (including the EuroPKI root certificate):
https://europki.iaik.at/ca/europki-at/cert_download.htm