On Feb 5, 2014, at 6:29 PM, Paul Hoffman <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Feb 5, 2014, at 1:19 PM, Osterweil, Eric <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Thanks for the quick response. I am, however, a little puzzled by it. So, >> is there some reason why these discussions here (on the WG list) are not the >> actual substance of determining what the DANE WG wants? As I understand it >> (perhaps incorrectly?), we are discussing a working group document, so >> discussion of its contents should be inbounds and any resulting rough WG >> consensus should help direct its contents, no? > > It is often better if a WG decides on a direction, not just a specific > technology. During the TLSA discussions, there were many threads about > delivery vs. discovery, and the WG early on went for "delivery, not > discovery". As I said in the previous message, if the WG wants to revisit > that decision and goes towards "discovery", there are lots of ways we can > make TLSA and SMIMEA records have some interesting new properties. Paul, I don't think we have nearly enough data points to prescribe the general principles of all DANE protocols. We have TLSA, and that is great. I sincerely mean that, I think the TLSA work is a great step forward. However, I also think that a starting assumption that prescribes that all DANE protocols should be executed under the same pre-computed discussions as the TLSA work is very bad for DANE. S/MIME's semantics, requirements, and usage are different than TLS'. How different? I don't even claim to know that. I think this line of discussion (disc vs. deliv) marginalizes the very specific issues that Scott raised and the subsequent issues that I raised. Can we try to stay on point? >> As for the broader statement of what DNS is for, and what the IETF at large >> thinks, I think perhaps you have expressed your own opinion here, and I >> (personally) do not agree. In my view, DNS is (very much) a resource >> mapping (i.e. learning) mechanism. That's how we find routable endpoints >> for HTTP. ;) Content delivery aside. I suspect you and I may actually be >> on the same page on that one, but apparently not on the learning issue. > > I'm agnostic, and am happy for this document and TLSA go whichever way the > IETF wants. However, I'm not in favor of trying to cross the line and see if > the IETF notices. I see you keying in on words, and I worry you're objecting to phraseology rather than the technical issues. Would you prefer to reboot the conversation with more specific terminology? These issues are important, so how about ``key learning.'' That is, imho, a more accurate description anyway. >> Back to the main issue, I am following up on Scott's solicitation for >> discussion about his proposed changes, and expressing my support for them. >> I have read your response to those and responded to it, and I am happy to >> discuss the technical details further. > > It's not the technical issues that are important, however. > > So, WG: is "DNS for delivery vs. DNS for delivery and discovery" a topic > people want to revisit? No, sorry, this is not the question that I raised. I offered very specific technical justifications for technical suggestions. Any answer to the above is not something I have raised or am discussing. Eric _______________________________________________ dane mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dane
