<chair> Ok, this conversation is becoming unnecessarily combative. Emotions are running high, and I would appreciate participants watching their tone. DANE is not finished, we have agreed to work on "How to do DANE with $foo" documents (the chairs have been remiss in not providing an updated charter for consideration that reflects this…)
Before discussing WebID *at all* I would want to discuss this all with our W3C liaison to avoid any cross SDO friction... </chair> On Sep 25, 2012, at 4:44 PM, Henry Story <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 > _______________________________________________ dane mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dane
