Hey Warren, Some comments below:
> On Jul 3, 2015, at 12:00 PM, Warren Kumari <[email protected]> wrote: > > Thanks to everyone who offered to help author, but that's not the > issue - the current authors are interested, able, and involved. > > Rather the issues include a lack of clear agreement on the email > address processing My 0.02 is that the approach being followed by the openpgp draft (try something and see if it works) is very helpful for illustrating the utility of DANE. It looks to me like there is a large contingent of the working group who have spoken up on list to support following this same path with SMIMEA. > and difficulty in getting actual review and > feedback on drafts. We have quite active discussions on the ideas and > concepts, but when it actually comes to review, comments and feedback > on documents we often end up with silence. I can’t quite follow this. I think the SMIMEA draft has had numerous suggestions (from ideas to text to running code). If it’s helpful, I can search the email archives and post some links to these discussions that were on list (not to mention the comments at various mics at various wg sessions). :) Was there some sort of other feedback that would be better? One example: https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dane/current/msg06964.html Irrespective of whether any given suggestion was incorporated by the editors, it seems like there has been a lot of suggested text and interest, imho. > The email address processing solution that we have in openpgpkey is > not perfect, but we think is good enough. We think that, after we have > gotten some experience with how this works in openpgpkey we will be in > a much better position to try solve the same issue in the SMIME > document. I would agree with the ``good enough’’ sentiment, and I echo those who have spoken up on the list this week in saying we should let it rip so we can gain real implementation and deployment experience with the S/MIME deployment-base. It does seem to me that the sentiment on the list is overwhelming to push this forward (roughly 10 people in agreement with moving ahead with it), and I see very little pushing it back, right? Eric _______________________________________________ dane mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dane
