I’ve done a careful read of draft-ietf-dane-smime-08. I find it to be in very good shape, and on track for publication as an Experimental.
My review surfaced a few minor points, easy to address: - The NOTE FOR FUTURE DRAFTS was added about a year ago (in the 05 version) and in my view, the WG has in the intervening year fulfilled the request of the note, to discuss all the diverse types of usage of DANE. - I support modifying the draft to follow OPENPGPKEY on the LHS as the working group has discussed. Supporting this point, my colleagues implemented the 08 draft exactly as it is in our proof of concept DANE provisioning tool [1] and then updated the PoC for this IETF with truncated SHA256. I’d love to see this settle down so that we can support tests and experiments with SMIMEA. Correspondingly, I’d be glad to see the SMIMEA RR assigned. Currently the PoC uses a number from the Private Use space. - In addition to matching the approach of OPENPGPKEY on the LHS, it would make sense for this draft to match the other draft's language on the subject of response length. I’d like to see the SMIME draft adopt the Security Considerations text about response size from the OPENPGPKEY draft. Thanks! Allison [1] DANE provisioning portal proof of concept: https://www.dane-provisioning.verisignlabs.com/ _______________________________________________ dane mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dane
