> > I propose to add some text to the draft RFC 7250 that extends RFC 6698
> > by defining how raw public keys are stored in TLSA records.
>
> That is a horrible abuse of the RFC publication process. That is, instead of
> you asking for IETF review of your idea, you are trying to slip in a
> significant technical change with no community review.
Hi Paul, nice to see you.
If I had wanted to slip something past the DANE WG without IETF
review, why would I post the above message to the DANE WG?
I am *asking* for review by the DANE WG. Not circumventing review. I
saw an issue that the DANE WG should know about, in an RFC from a
different WG, and I brought it to the DANE WG's attention. Is there
something wrong with that?
Is your complaint that you want a few-paragraph DANE RFC that makes the
update, rather than a few paragraphs in the TLS Raw Public Keys RFC?
I.e. is this a turf battle over which WG gets to claim the document?
Or, do you have an actual, substantive, technical issue with the
proposed extension of the DANE TLSA records?
John
_______________________________________________
dane mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dane
