Hi Tero,
Thank you very much for your clarification. We will update reference RFC 822 accordingly in our draft.
Tom, you proposed us to replace RFC 822 with 2822, but it is also obsoleted by 5322. So, if you agree, we will reference RFC 5322 instead.
Best regards,
Fernando.
El mar., 22 sept. 2020 a las 19:50, Tero Kivinen (<kivinen@xxxxxx>) escribió:
Fernando Pereñíguez García writes:
> I note that RFC822 and RFC3280 are Obsoleted which makes their use
> problematic.
>
> [Authors] Following your recommendation, we have replaced RFC 3280 with RFC
> 5280. Regarding RFC 822, we reference it because the IKEv2 protocol
> specification (RFC 7296) explicitly defines RFC 822 emails address (see page
> 90) as a valid identification type. If we replace RFC 822 with RFC 2821, we
> don't know its impact on IKEv2.
IKEv2 talks about RFC 822 email addresses, the reference points
Internationalized Email Headers RFC 6532, with comment of:
Because of [EAI], implementations would be wise to treat this
field as UTF-8 encoded text, not as pure ASCII.
So it uses RFC822 as name not as reference. There should not be any
problems to replace that with newer versions. Most of the
implementations simply consider that as a string and some cases they
actually do not even follow the string email address format, as they
add some routing information for AAAA in the end or something.
--
kivinen@xxxxxx
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fernando Pereñíguez García, PhDDepartment of Sciences and Informatics
University Defense Center, (CUD), Spanish Air Force Academy, MDE-UPCT
C/ Coronel Lopez Peña, s/n, 30720, San Javier, Murcia - SPAIN
Tel: +34 968 189 946 Fax: +34 968 189 970
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
