Subject: [ldapext] New Version Notification for draft-seantek-ldap-pkcs9-04.txt

From: Sean Leonard <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2016 09:23:31 -0800

This is a friendly reminder that the LDAP PKCS #9 registration 
Internet-Draft is still a live issue.

Sean

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	New Version Notification for draft-seantek-ldap-pkcs9-04.txt
Date: 	Sat, 12 Mar 2016 09:20:32 -0800
From: 	[email-masked]

A new version of I-D, draft-seantek-ldap-pkcs9-04.txt
has been successfully submitted by Sean Leonard and posted to the
IETF repository.

Name:		draft-seantek-ldap-pkcs9
Revision:	04
Title:		Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP) Registrations for PKCS #9
Document date:	2016-03-12
Group:		Individual Submission
Pages:		7
URL:            https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-seantek-ldap-pkcs9-04.txt
Status:         https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-seantek-ldap-pkcs9/
Htmlized:       https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-seantek-ldap-pkcs9-04
Diff:           https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-seantek-ldap-pkcs9-04

Abstract:
    PKCS #9 includes several useful definitions that are not yet
    reflected in the LDAP IANA registry. This document adds those
    definitions to the IANA registry.

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2016 19:11:37 +0000

Yes, I had thought this might wait for a resurrection of an ldapext
working group, but that seems to have stalled.  I'm happy to
AD-sponsor this to get the registration done, but I'd like some review
and comment from the LDAP folks, and this is the place for that.  Will
some of you please take a look at Sean's draft and comment?

Thanks,
Barry, ART AD for another few weeks

On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 5:23 PM, Sean Leonard <[email-masked]> wrote:
> URL:
> https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-seantek-ldap-pkcs9-04.txt
> Diff:
> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-seantek-ldap-pkcs9-04
>
> Abstract:
> _______________________________________________
> Ldapext mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ldapext

---

From: Simo Sorce <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 09:34:07 -0400

> some of you please take a look at Sean's draft and comment?

I haven't done proper full review, but I thought aliases was frowned
upon these days and I see quite a few one(few) char aliases in there,
why do we need such aliases ?

Simo.

-- 
Simo Sorce * Red Hat, Inc * New York

---

From: Sean Leonard <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 07:13:56 -0700

> why do we need such aliases ?

This draft documents the existing practice of security implementations, 
including MS CryptoAPI and OpenSSL. This should be evaluated through the 
lens of "backwards or long-term systems compatibility", not the lens of 
"these days" (in the LDAP community).

PKIX enabled systems (read: OpenSSL) use LDAP strings (RFC 4514) to 
serialize and de-serialize the Distinguished Names in certificates. 
Parity is required and the only registry is the LDAP Parameters / Object 
Identifier Descriptors registry. These strings have migrated to 
cross-systems protocols. See, e.g., 
draft-martin-authentication-results-tls. Using "e" for emailAddress = 
1.2.840.113549.1.9.1, for example, is simply an historical fact. This 
reminds me, I should probably include a note about "gn" (givenName) in a 
future draft.

Best regards,

Sean