On Jun 30, 2015, at 8:16 PM, Melinda Shore <[email protected]> wrote: > On 6/30/15 6:51 PM, Paul Wouters wrote: >> I actually also do not really understand the decision, other than the >> authors seeing a hot potato. I still believe it would be in the interest >> of both the OPENPGPKEY and the SMIMEA drafts that they continue to >> discuss and attempt to use the same lookup mechanism. >> iI suspect many software implementors that will implement one, will >> also implement the other. Since it is mostly a different format for the >> same idea, attempt to encrypt emails when a public key is advertised. > > Yes, to all of this. I really don't understand the reasoning > behind this decision, mostly because the only explanation given > has been pretty perfunctory. Surely a better option right now > would be to find additional editors.
We have plenty of willing editors: what we need is WG interest in reviewing (not just in asking for us to finish regardless of the open issues). The open issue in draft-ietf-dane-smime heavily overlap with those in draft-ietf-dane-openpgpkey, but only a very small number of people have chimed in on the recent threads. Without sufficient review, there is a good chance that the protocol will be heavily flawed. Note that the current issues are not the only ones for draft-ietf-dane-smime. Eric Osterweil brought up many proposals earlier that died because no one even commented on them. WG consensus by silence is a good sign that not enough people care about getting the protocol right. --Paul Hoffman _______________________________________________ dane mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dane
