RE: draft-ietf-pkix-srvsan-00

[Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@xxxxxxxx>]

At 5:01 PM +0000 2/1/07, Stefan Santesson wrote:
> Different name forms are allowed to have different encoding, that is 
> nothing new.
> So why do you come to the conclusion that the dNSName alt name must 
> have the same format as a service name?
> You seem to state that this is an obvious requirement, but it is not 
> obvious to me.

It is obvious to me that having different encoding rules for domain 
names is likely to confuse implementers. There is nothing in SRV 
names that make them any different than "regular" domain names.

> We discussed this in the WG and concluded that there are advantages 
> in using UTF-8 encoding and storing the service name in a form where 
> it can be printed and displayed. There must be a rationale why we 
> should move away from this.

I have given mine; you may or may not like it.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium