Subject: RE: Re: [TLS] Re: Last Call: 'TLS User Mapping Extension' to Proposed Standard

From: "Stefan Santesson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 20:23:03 -0000

Russ,

Thanks for that clarification.
This is what I poorly was trying to communicate.

Stefan Santesson
Program Manager, Standards Liaison
Windows Security

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Russ Housley [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: den 20 mars 2006 14:09
> To: Stefan Santesson; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: Re: [TLS] Re: Last Call: 'TLS User Mapping Extension' to
> Proposed Standard
> 
> I need to add a point of information regarding "assisted" in the text
> below.  I insisted that the solution support multiple name forms and
> that the solution include a backward compatible mechanism as new name
> forms are registered.  I did offer some guidance during AD Review to
> ensure that these properties were included.
> 
> Russ
> 
> 
> At 01:35 PM 3/20/2006, Stefan Santesson wrote:
> ><Stefan> We can't define a new user mapping type just to have one
more.
> >There has to be a use case with a need for one. The current hint can
be
> >used with a wide set of account names in practically any environment
> >that use the principles of user@domain.
> >
> >But the extensibility is there in case a new need is there in the
> >future.
> >The security AD (Russ) has assisted in developing that part of the
> >document.

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 18:00:36 +0200

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-santesson-tls-ume-04.txt says:

   This document does not specify how the server stores the
   user_principal_name, or how exactly it might be used to locate a
   certificate.  For instance, it might be appropriate to do a case-
   insensitive lookup.  It is RECOMMENDED that the server processes the
   user_principal_name with a stringprep profile [N7] appropriate for
   the identity in question, such as Nameprep [N8] for the portion
   domain portion of UPN, SASLprep [N9] for the user portion of the UPN
   and stringprep appendix B.3 [N7] as mapping table for case folding.

Given that the first and second sentence make it clear that the use of
StringPrep is not required, I suggest using MAY instead of RECOMMENDED
in the third sentence.  RECOMMENDED is the same as SHOULD according to
RFC 2119, and is a fairly strong recommendation.  Its use seem
misplaced here.

It may be better to avoid RFC 2119 language completely here, because
the entire paragraph is merely an example of what you can do.

Thanks,
Simon

The IESG <[email-masked]> writes:

> The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider the 
> following documents:
>
> - 'TLS User Mapping Extension'
>    <draft-santesson-tls-ume-04.txt> as a Proposed Standard
> - 'TLS Handshake Message for Supplemental Data'
>    <draft-santesson-tls-supp-00.txt> as a Proposed Standard
>
> The previous Last Call on draft-santesson-tls-ume-03.txt has finished.
> However, to resolve some comments that were received during the
> previous Last Call, the document has been updated and
> draft-santesson-tls-supp-00.txt was written.  Due to the significant
> changes in one area of the document, the IESG is making a second
> call for comments.  This comment period is shorter since the majority
> of the document is unchanged.
>
> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
> final comments on this action.  Please send any comments to the
> [email-masked] or [email-masked] mailing lists by 2006-04-11.
>
> The file can be obtained via
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-santesson-tls-ume-04.txt
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-santesson-tls-supp-00.txt