Re: Remaining open issues for RFC-2401bis

[Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com>]

At 11:36 AM -0800 3/24/04, Mohan Parthasarathy wrote:
>  >
>>
>>  >>>>> "VPNC" == VPNC  <Paul> writes:
>>      VPNC> No, we don't. We have ways of encoding the display name and
>>      VPNC> the coments, but *not* the address itself (called the
>>      VPNC> "addr-spec"). RFC 822 and 2822 are completely clear on this.
>>
>>    Ah, good point.
>>
>>      >> 2) we could agree to permit UTF-8 in RFC822_ADDR.
>>
>>      VPNC> Doing so and hoping that the Applications Area Directors don't
>>      VPNC> barf is like
>>
>>    Fine. Point made.
>>    So, we need an identifier that can carry UTF-8, is known to carry
>>  UTF-8, and isn't ID_KEY_ID.
>>
>I hope this does not preclude ID_KEY_ID from carrying UTF-8 in an
>opaque way. I think this is what Paul Koning mentioned in an earlier mail.
>

For the reasons cited earlier, I think it is a bad idea to carry 
structured data like UTF-8 in what is described as an opaque octet 
string. there is no reason to assume that there will be management 
interfaces to facilitate entry of the data in a compatible fashion, 
even without the encoding options that Paul has pointed out.

Steve