Subject: Re: [certid] version -11

From: =JeffH <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2010 22:57:24 -0800

Thanks for the prompt review :)

 > - The sentence that was added to 2.3 beginning with "However..." needs 
clarification.
 > Current:
 >    However, the Common Name might contain a human-readable string for
 >    the service, rather than a string whose form matches that of a fully-
 >    qualified DNS domain name:
 >
 > Proposed:
 >    However, the Common Name might contain a human-readable string for
 >    the service, rather than a string whose form matches that of a fully-
 >    qualified DNS domain name, and a certificate with such a Common Name
 >    SHOULD have a subjectAltName that contains the fully-qualified domain
 >    name:

Nominally agree.

Those sections (2.*) are effectively a non-normative, so perhaps the "SHOULD" 
ought to be "will typically".

3.1. (1) effectively (and normatively) states the "SHOULD" requirement wrt 
DNS-ID (aka subjectAltName:dNSName).

 > A few editorial-only comments that might or might not elicit a -12:
 >
 > - A parenthetical sentence was added to the beginning of 1.5 that is,
 > fortunately, not true. The "$" thing in the security terms RFC is
 > distracting, and would make this document harder to read. Please just remove
 > the parenthetical sentence.

yes, this parenthetical sentence should simply be removed.

 > - The three examples added to 2.3 are good, but they are in the reverse
 > order of the sentence that introduces them.

doh.

 > - Paragraph and section breaks are your friend. The "Implementation Note" at
 > the end of 2.3 is more properly "Many Implementation Notes" and probably
 > deserves its own subsection.

hm. yeah, it should be spaced out somehow.

thx again,

=JeffH

---

From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2010 07:52:43 -0800

At 10:57 PM -0800 11/26/10, =JeffH wrote:
>> - The sentence that was added to 2.3 beginning with "However..." needs clarification.
>> Current:
>Those sections (2.*) are effectively a non-normative, so perhaps the "SHOULD" ought to be "will typically".

Ah, I had missed that. "will typically" works for me.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 16:24:10 -0700

> Ah, I had missed that. "will typically" works for me.

In our working copy I now have:

   However, the Common Name might contain a human-readable string for
   the service, rather than a string whose form matches that of a fully-
   qualified DNS domain name (a certificate with such a Common Name will
   typically have at least one subjectAltName entry that contains the
   fully-qualified domain name):

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/