Subject: Re: IDNA encoding for Kerberos host names

From: Ienup Sung <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2003 17:03:58 -0700 (PDT)

Actually, what you wrote is something that we need to spell out at
the extension and more in my opinion since it's not just Stringprep as
you know and in the reality, principal names and realms like the following
that coincides and as synonyms to the current domain of the net are
frequent:

	joe/[email-masked]
	rlogin/[email-masked]

Also, I understand the current KerberosString at the clarification
draft constaints it to GeneralString (IA5String). (Ironically, the ACE
encoding which is a subset of 7-bit ASCII just conforms that constraint
fine.)

I'm not really confused in my opinion but trying to clarify and
refine the extensions. (I feel a bit offend by your remarks. :-)

It will be great if I can review the extension draft (since all the info
that I am getting are through email archives and discussions with some
members who are directly working on the draft in my understanding).

With regards,

Ienup

] Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2003 19:42:15 -0400
] From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
] Subject: Re: IDNA encoding for Kerberos host names
] To: Ienup Sung <[email-masked]>
] Cc: [email-masked]
] MIME-version: 1.0
] 
] >>>>> "Ienup" == Ienup Sung <[email-masked]> writes:
] 
]     Ienup> As the section 1.2 of the clarification draft describes, it
]     Ienup> is, unfortunately a reality of people using domain style
]     Ienup> domain and host names to derive realms and principal
]     Ienup> names. 
] 
] This is true, and I believe I have explained to you how this should be
] done, using two different stringprep profiles for DNS and Kerberos
] from  single input.
] 
] 
]     Ienup> If the use of ACE isn't satisfactory thing and
]     Ienup> should be banned at the extension (
] 
] No spec permits it now.  People explained on this list that Kerberos
] contains no domain slots and thus ACE is inappropriate.
] 
] As I understand it is already inappropriate to use because of the IDNA specs.
] 
] We'll certainly add extra wording on this issue because if you are
] confused possibly other people will be confused as well.
] 
] We would appreciate you reviewing what we have proposed and helping us
] make sure that it will work in practice. There may be cases we are
] missing.  Is so we would appreciate your help pointing them out to us.
]

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2003 20:14:29 -0400

>>>>> "Ienup" == Ienup Sung <[email-masked]> writes:

    Ienup> Actually, what you wrote is something that we need to spell
    Ienup> out at the extension and more in my opinion since it's not
    Ienup> just Stringprep as you know and in the reality, principal
    Ienup> names and realms like the following that coincides and as
    Ienup> synonyms to the current domain of the net are frequent:

I agree it needs to be spelled out.  Before we do that I'd appreciate
your help in making sure that what is being proposed here will
actually work.

Do you understand what is being proposed well enough to have an
informed opinion about whether it will work?  If not what questions
would you need answered to understand the proposal?

If you understand things well enough to have an informed opinion , do
you believe that our proposal will work?  If not, what will fail?  If
so, then we should move onto spelling things out so people implement
correctly.

--Sam