On 25 Sep 2012, at 16:19, Paul Hoffman <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sep 25, 2012, at 7:11 AM, Henry Story <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 25 Sep 2012, at 16:09, Paul Hoffman <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> WebID is not in the charter for this WG. If you want to discuss S/MIME and >>> WebID, you are free to do so elsewhere, of course. There is no need for you >>> to Cc this WG on that work. >> >> Neither I suppose is TLS, or MIME btw, or many other standards that are >> discussed on this list. > > TLS and MIME are IETF standards. WebID is not yet a standard from any > organization, I believe. Notice the difference? Ah I see, if it were a standard you'd be able to discuss it? But if it is not, then you can't conceive of it... Now notice that your new proposal - draft-hoffman-dane-smime - is also just a proposal. And it may have disadvantage over another proposal that we could make just as easily. That proposal - based on WebID - would also be using DANE to gain strength. So I don't see the difference. If we can make proposals on this list for non DANE for server auth proposals then clearly the proposal that WebID constitutes or could constitute with a bit of imagination, would be something to take into consideration. so difference = 0 > >> But knowing that they exist has always been important to IETF practice. > > There are a zillion pre-standards efforts on the Internet; we don't need to > discuss them all in a WG that is about DANE. But this working group was about DANE, the project that has finished. You now want to essentially continue with the momentum to propose a standard which is only tangentially related to why people formed the DANE group. But I see you'd rather deflect the discussion from that area, than address the points. Anyway, let's stop this sill fighting and look at the issues. >> It's called: not re-inventing the wheel. > > WebID is completely orthogonal to DANE, or will be when it becomes > standardized. Yes, you can pour anything into the WebID container. That > doesn't mean that no other work needs to be done in the IETF. I think the interesting thing to work out is in what way this is orthogonal. What I don't understand yet looking at draft-hoffman-dane-smime, is what key is going to be placed in DNS. Is it the signing key? The key that will sign the certificates? If so that could indeed be worthwhile putting in DNS. ( Though one could just as easily put that in http space ). If it is to put the client certificates themselves in DNS, then that seems much less of a good idea. > >> But I see you have a problem with that. > > No, you see I have a problem with you trying to legitimize WebID in every > possible venue in the IETF even though you have failed to get support > elsewhere. Note the difference? You are putting a draft forward! Not a final spec. > >> Sorry to have hurt your feelings. > > You are mistaking "hurt feelings" for "please don't waste our time here; feel > free to work on it on your own". Note the difference? Yes, I notice that your are mixing your role of chair with role of proposer of a spec. > > --Paul Hoffman Social Web Architect http://bblfish.net/ _______________________________________________ dane mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dane
