May be also an issue for those who depend on ldap 'mail' attribute and by
protocol ldap's data is case insensitive. Himanshu
Marc Jadoul wrote:
> Seems a BIG problem to me!
>
> May be RFC 3280 is wrong in his understanding of RFC 822.
> But RFC 822 (or ...) is probably wrong in doing things so complex for End
> Users.
> And I do not see how it can be fixed except fixing RFC 2822 and RFC 2821.
>
> Why is it like this in RFC 822 and successor?
>
> Marc Jadoul
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Steve Hanna" <steve.hanna@sun.com>
> To: <ietf-pkix@imc.org>; <ietf-smime@imc.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 11:23 PM
> Subject: RFC 3280 error WRT rfc822Name
>
> >
> > In section 4.2.1.7, RFC 3280 (and RFC 2459) says:
> >
> > Note that while upper and lower case letters are allowed in an
> > RFC 822 addr-spec, no significance is attached to the case.
> >
> > But RFC 822 says:
> >
> > The only syntactic units which requires preservation of
> > case information are:
> >
> > - text
> > - qtext
> > - dtext
> > - ctext
> > - quoted-pair
> > - local-part, except "Postmaster"
> >
> > When matching any other syntactic unit, case is to be ignored.
> >
> > And RFC 2821 (the successor to RFC 821 and the companion
> > to RFC 2822, which obsoletes RFC 822) is more explicit:
> >
> > The local-part of a mailbox MUST BE treated as case sensitive.
> >
> > I have spoken to a few people about this and the consensus
> > seems to be that RFC 3280 is wrong. When matching email
> > addresses (such as when processing name constraints during
> > certificate path validation), the local-part component of
> > an email address must be treated as case-sensitive.
> >
> > If the members of these lists don't agree with this analysis,
> > please speak up. Otherwise, I expect that this will be fixed
> > in the successor to RFC 3280. Note that I don't think this
> > is an especially big deal. I just thought people would want
> > to know of the problem ASAP.
> >
> > Note also that many email servers don't treat local-part as
> > case-sensitive. But some do. There's no way for a certificate
> > processing system to know whether steve.hanna@sun.com is
> > actually the same mailbox as Steve.Hanna@sun.com. So the
> > certificate processing system must treat them as different.
> > At least, that's the rationale for this rule.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Steve Hanna
> > Sun Microsystems, Inc.
> >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Thu Oct 24 2002 - 10:31:46 PDT