On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 03:14:31PM +0100, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> Can we try get this one settled soon, at least in terms of
> any changes to draft-ietf-tls-oob?
>
> The core WG have been waiting on that for quite a while as
> its a normative dependency for CoAP.
>
> (So, dane WG chairs - if you could propose a consensus call
> for the action to take that'd be great and we can move on.)
Could you perhaps restate the questions to be considered?
I think John Gilmore posed two questions:
* What is the representation of oob public keys in DANE TLSA
records. Proposed "3 1 X".
[FWIW I support this view, with the added observation from
James Cloos that "3 0 0" can also match raw public keys via
the enclosed SPKI value].
* What document should define this representation, and amend
the restrictive language in 6698 Section 1.3:
This document only applies to PKIX [RFC5280] certificates, not
certificates of other formats.
and extend the definition of usage 3 or some new [ideally not]
usage to handle raw public keys.
Are these the right questions?
[ Turf issues aside, there seems to be enough subtle detail in getting
this right that it seems to me that a new DANE WG document, quite possibly
whatever we call the current "ops" draft by the time November rolls around,
is the right place to define this mapping. ]
--
Viktor.
_______________________________________________
dane mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dane
