Does this current thread provide enough evidence of interest to make progress on the draft?
While there have been discussions about changes to the SMIME draft, is there anything beyond reconciling the openpgpkey and smimea locating approach that would be significant enough to warrant holding the draft up? -- Glen Wiley Principal Engineer Verisign, Inc. (571) 230-7917 http://vbsdcon.com A5E5 E373 3C75 5B3E 2E24 6A0F DC65 2354 9946 C63A On 6/30/15, 11:23 PM, "Paul Hoffman" <[email protected]> wrote: >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 _______________________________________________ dane mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dane
