To:
<Chris.Newman@Sun.COM>
Cc:
<ietf-provreg@cafax.se>
From:
"Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>
Date:
Thu, 30 Oct 2008 09:20:55 -0400
Content-class:
urn:content-classes:message
In-Reply-To:
<F56BC6781D91EE6290D4179A@446E7922C82D299DB29D899F>
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Thread-Index:
AckvxK8WS/n8pnKkRvGt1l+no5rJwAKzUfgQ
Thread-Topic:
Standards Track Advancement Request for EPP RFCs
Subject:
[ietf-provreg] RE: Standards Track Advancement Request for EPP RFCs
(removing Lisa and iesg@ietf.org) Chris, can you give me an idea of when you'll complete your review and if/when you can point me to some text in another application protocol spec that provides the kind of TLS specifics you've described below? -Scott- > -----Original Message----- > From: Chris.Newman@Sun.COM [mailto:Chris.Newman@Sun.COM] > Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2008 3:23 PM > To: Hollenbeck, Scott; lisa@osafoundation.org > Cc: ietf-provreg@cafax.se; iesg@ietf.org > Subject: Re: Standards Track Advancement Request for EPP RFCs > > Lisa and I discussed this and decided I should take this on. > > I do have a technical issue I'd like resolved before moving > forward. RFC > 4934 is quite vague about the TLS bindings -- there's no > mandatory-to-implement mechanism, it doesn't discuss whether > or not wildcards are supported, it doesn't say if > subjectAltName takes precedence over legacy use of domain > names in CN, it doesn't say whether certificates (client > and/or server) are used or PSK is used, and doesn't discuss > interaction with the login command, and it's even vague about > whether the TLS negotiation on port 700 starts immediately > after connection. Given the excellent implementation report, > I suspect this is simply a matter of revising RFC 4934 to > more precisely document what was implemented so that an > independent implementer can replicate that. A revision would > also provide the opportunity to update the reference from > 3280 to 5280 so that IDNs in certificates are adequately > covered (probably a useful improvement). > > I haven't reviewed 4930-4933 in detail yet. Given the high > quality interop report, I suspect they would be fine without > an update. However, if you wish to republish them as well, I > can review them with an eye to improving clarity for interoperability. > > - Chris > > --On October 6, 2008 8:42:56 -0400 "Hollenbeck, Scott" > <shollenbeck@verisign.com> wrote: > > > The EPP RFC documents (RFCs 4930, 4931, 4932, 4933, and 4934) were > > published as Draft Standards in May 2007. I am asking the IESG to > > review these documents for advancement to "Standard" status as > > described in sections 6.1 and 6.2 of RFC 2026. There are > no entries > > in the RFC Editor errata database for any of these RFCs. > > > > Thank you, > > Scott Hollenbeck > > > > > > >