Subject: Re: Comments on draft-ietf-pkix-cert-utf8-01.txt

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 10:35:32 -0500

Jim:

Thanks for the first WG Last Call comments.

>1.  Page 2 last paragraph:  "issuer and and the old" - remove duplicate
>"and"

Agree.  It will be included in the next revision.

>2.  Inclusion of the section title would improve the readablity of the
>document.

Agree.  It will be included in the next revision.

>3.  Text dealing with connocalization (or the non-requirement for) should be
>included in the document.

Why?  That part of the text is unchanged.  This document cannot be 
understood without the rest of RFC 3280.

>4.  Does any text regarding Subject and issuer Alt Names need to be
>included?

Good question.  I asked this question when I read Santosh's posting, 
but no one has responded.  My initial reaction is that we should add 
it, but I would like to hear what others think.

Russ

---

From: "Jim Schaad" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2006 17:22:14 -0500

Russ, 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Russ Housley [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2006 10:36 AM
> To: Jim Schaad; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: Comments on draft-ietf-pkix-cert-utf8-01.txt
> 
> Jim:
> 
> >3.  Text dealing with connocalization (or the non-requirement for) 
> >should be included in the document.
> 
> Why?  That part of the text is unchanged.  This document 
> cannot be understood without the rest of RFC 3280.

What text in RFC 3280 are you refering to as being unchanged?  I cannot find
any reference to canonicalization of utf8 strings anyplace in RFC 3280.

Jim

> Good question.  I asked this question when I read Santosh's 
> posting, but no one has responded.  My initial reaction is 
> that we should add it, but I would like to hear what others think.
> 
> Russ
> 
> 
>

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 19:50:23 -0500

>any reference to canonicalization of utf8 strings anyplace in RFC 3280.

I thought you were referring to this text:

    This specification requires only a subset of the name comparison
    functionality specified in the X.500 series of specifications.
    Conforming implementations are REQUIRED to implement the following
    name comparison rules:

       (a)  attribute values encoded in different types (e.g.,
       PrintableString and BMPString) MAY be assumed to represent
       different strings;

       (b) attribute values in types other than PrintableString are case
       sensitive (this permits matching of attribute values as binary
       objects);

       (c)  attribute values in PrintableString are not case sensitive
       (e.g., "Marianne Swanson" is the same as "MARIANNE SWANSON"); and

       (d)  attribute values in PrintableString are compared after
       removing leading and trailing white space and converting internal
       substrings of one or more consecutive white space characters to a
       single space.

    These name comparison rules permit a certificate user to validate
    certificates issued using languages or encodings unfamiliar to the
    certificate user.

It basically says that only PrintableString (not UTF8String) gets 
special treatment for case and white space.

Russ

---

From: "Jim Schaad" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2006 20:49:46 -0500

Russ,

No that is not what I was refering to.  I was thinking in terms of the
different ways that an umlatted A can be encoded.

Jim

> Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2006 7:50 PM
> Subject: RE: Comments on draft-ietf-pkix-cert-utf8-01.txt
> 
> Jim:
> 
> >What text in RFC 3280 are you refering to as being 
> unchanged?  I cannot 
> >find any reference to canonicalization of utf8 strings 
> anyplace in RFC 3280.
> 
> It basically says that only PrintableString (not UTF8String) 
> gets special treatment for case and white space.
> 
> Russ
> 
> 
>

---

From: Masaki SHIMAOKA <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2006 11:19:15 +0900

Russ,

Excuse to interrupt your discussion.

> special treatment for case and white space.

For the DN using only ASCII characters encoded by UTF8String, how is
such special treatment?

IMHO, such special treatment should not depend on the encoding type.
So, I propose that special treatment should be applied to both
printableString and UTF8String.

On Wed, 01 Mar 2006 19:50:23 -0500

-- 
Masaki SHIMAOKA <[email-masked]>
SECOM IS Lab.
Core Technology Div.
+81 422 76 2105 (4172)

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 22:14:28 -0500

It does not receive this treatment unless it is encoded as PrintableString.

Russ

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 22:11:34 -0500

Jim:

Personally, I do not think we need to cover that here.

Russ