[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
I see that in the new draft the example "fred@foo" becomes now a
valid NAI because the definition of the realm changed compard to the
original RFC, but in naibis it is still in the invalid list - but
that has to be changed I guess?
Could there also be the following problem: "firstname.lastname@example.org" was
valid in the original RFC2486. Now how do I know whether the
username is "eng!nancy", which is a valid username, or is the
username "nancy" and homerealm "eng"? I believe it is better to use
another symbol than "!" such as ":"?
Jari Arkko wrote:
> Bernard Aboba wrote:
> >>1) examples in section 2.8: why is @howard.edu an invalid NAI? And
> >>why has email@example.com been removed from the list of valid NAIs
> >>compared to RFC2486? I believe it is still valid, or should it be
> >>put in the list of invalid NAIs?
> > Good catch. RFC 2486bis should not be introducing non-backward compatible
> > changes.
> Yes. Thanks Stefaan for your comments!
> @howard.edu was actually listed as an illegal example
> in RFC 2486; the introduction of the privacy feature
> makes this now legal.
> firstname.lastname@example.org is still legal. I removed it
> as a part of providing a new set of examples, but
> since there are questions about it, maybe I should
> put it back in just to avoid people wondering whether
> it has been made illegal.
> > 2) Would it not be better to define the nai in 2.1 as follows:
> > nai = [realm "!"] ( <....> )
> > with <....> the current nai defintion. This to make the explanation
> > in section 2.7 more formal.
> > 3) typo: a quotation mark too much at the end in the nai definition
> > in 2.1.
> Yes. Kalle Tammela also noticed this issue.
> I have corrected the above issues in
to unsubscribe send a message to email@example.com with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.