Re: E01: dname encoding rules proposal (ACTION-51)

On 2007-06-19 16:27:01 +0200, Konrad Lanz wrote:

>> Part of the issue as I see it is that the DNAME encoding rules are
>> actually referenced with a MUST from the WS-I BSP.  We don't know
>> whether that's an oversight on their side or actually indicates that
>> there are implementations of these rules that we don't know of.

> I'm wondering whether a new edition would effect their references, still 
> referencing the first edition ?

I'd rather not have to finess this point.  There's a reason why
there's a difference between an Edited Recommendation and a version
1.1.

>> Therefore, I propose that we adopt the text as currently in the
>> Editor's Draft, with a possible change of reference to 4514, thereby
>> (a) leaving the conformance model as dodgy as it is right now, and
>> (b) try to clean up the technical content to make it somewhat more
>> understandable.

> (c) make those "doggy rules" legacy rules only valid for
> verification and put sound rules for signature creation into the
> next edition (as opposed to the next version).

"Dodgy", really.

I think this proposal is actually the same as just deleting the
special rules, since the material created according to them complies
to the grammar in RFCs 4514 / 2253.  Therefore, there is really *no*
change for signature processors, but a bit of a change for
generators in what you suggest.

-- 
Thomas Roessler, W3C  <tlr@w3.org>

Received on Tuesday, 19 June 2007 15:15:34 UTC