On 25 Sep 2012, at 17:22, Stephen Kent <[email protected]> wrote: > Henry, > >>> 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. > DANE is seen as a basis for using public key info published via the DNS to > bind public keys > to DNS names, as discussed at the BoF that preceded the formation of this WG. > The WG was chartered to deal with TLS first, to provide focus. The intent is > to allow the WG to use the same basic mechanism to provide > public keys to other security protocols. So, your statement above, is not > correct, both in terms of stating that the project is finished, and in terms > of why the WG was formed.
I don't have problems with this. I was just reacting to claim that one could not bring up any outside work relating to the idea of binding public keys to users using DNS. > I don't recall seeing you at that BoF; were you present? I was present in Paris, not in the recent IETF meeting. In any case this is more a question of understanding how things can work together. Sorry if I come in a bit late into the discussion. But there is no need to get so defensive about the draft-hoffman. Henry > > Steve > _______________________________________________ > dane mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dane Social Web Architect http://bblfish.net/ _______________________________________________ dane mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dane
