Generic Security Service Application Program Interface (GSS-API) Internationalization and Domain-Based Service Names and Name Type
RFC 5178

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 06 and is now closed.

(Ted Hardie) Discuss

Discuss (2007-01-10 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
draft-ietf-kitten-gssapi-domain-based-names says:

   An application protocol
   might use a simple DNS domainname, such as "" for naming,
   while another it might use the DNS domainname of the SRV RRs it
   queries (e.g., ""), and yet another may use
   something that does not resemble a DNS domainname. 

The example is wrong; it should be to meet the SRV

The same document gives the following as the syntax for domain based names:

 <service> '@' <domain> '@' <hostname>

It dos not cite the documents from which these are imported.  Given that the introduction
notes that the domain name is not necessarily an internet domain name, a clear
citation is critical.  Either this document or the cited document must make clear
whether characters outside the ASCII range will be processed according IDNA,
and that clarity should extend to both domain and hostname portions.  I assume
that both do, but the reader should not have to assume.

The document has RFC 4033 as a normative reference, but the single citation
appears to be informative.

(Sam Hartman) (was Discuss, Yes, Discuss, Yes) Yes

(Jari Arkko) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2007-01-11)
No email
send info
2. While you are updating the document for other reasons,
   consider writing

      domain-based-name :=

         <service> '@' <domain> '@' <hostname>

   in ABNF instead.

3. I agree with Ted that the spec needs to be clearer about
   what specific syntax is meant by <service> and by the
   other components. And i18n support or lack thereof
   should be explicitly mentioned.

(Ross Callon) No Objection

(Brian Carpenter) No Objection

Comment (2007-01-10 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
Nothing to be said about internationalized names?

(Lisa Dusseault) No Objection

(Lars Eggert) No Objection

(Bill Fenner) No Objection

(Russ Housley) No Objection

Comment (2007-01-08 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info

  The security considerations say:
  > See [I-D.ietf-kitten-gssapi-domain-based-names].
  I would prefer an English sentence here.  Perhaps:
  > This specification does not intoduce an security considerations
  > beyond those discussed on [REF].
  This seems like a resonable way to go since
  draft-ietf-kitten-gssapi-domain-based-names is already
  a normative reference.

(Cullen Jennings) No Objection

(David Kessens) No Objection

(Chris Newman) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Jon Peterson) No Objection

(Dan Romascanu) No Objection

(Mark Townsley) No Objection