On Sun, 24 Jul 2016, Warren Kumari wrote:
A reminder that this WGLC closes tomorrow -- so far we have not really
seen sufficient feedback on this document. PLEASE review this document
and provide comment.
I have reviewed the document. I think it is ready for IETF LC but it
could see a few small changes:
It should probably update its reference in the introduction to list
soon to be RFC-7929 (openpgpkey) and wait on that doc (in AUTH48 now)
to go out first.
The SMIMEA resource record has no special TTL requirements.
During openpgpkey discussion, it was decided it was better to remove
this line. I would think the same applies to smime.
During openpgpkey discussion, people insisted on specifying the
"experimental goal" of the Experimental RFC. That section is missing
in this document.
Section 3's title is a bit long. In openpgpkey we used a shorter
title. I suggest "Location of the SMIMEA record".
The openpgpkey had updated the "tcp only" phrasing to make it more
layer agnostic and mentions DNS-COOKIES as a defense and method to
allow UDP. You might want to consider using the same approach instead
of banning UDP altogether.
I also wanted to make sure people (including the authors) had seen:
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dane/current/msg08382.html
This has come up in the past when discussing SMIME. One suggestion was
to use a different prefix (like _encrypt. and _sign). When this was
brought up, the patent status of this was not entirely clear, and there
were privacy discussions raised on exposing queries to the purpose of
the query. Perhaps the document can state that if the certificate is
obtained via SMIMEA, it should be checked whether it is suitable for
the task to perform. And that publishers are encouraged to publish
SMIMEA records for certificates that allow both signing and encryption.
But this latter approach did not have a clear consensus.
Paul
W
On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 12:53 PM, Olafur Gudmundsson <[email protected]> wrote:
Dear Colleagues
The editors of https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dane-smime/ have
requested a WGLC,
the chairs are satisfied that the document is in good shape. This message
starts a three week WG LC,
that concludes on Monday July 25 23:59 UTC (we have extended the
usual 2 weeks because of the upcoming meeting, travel, etc).
This document is on the Experimental track, it is a close relative of a
prior document from our group
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dane-openpgpkey/ which is in
AUTH-48 at this point.
Any discussions on “local part” other than to point out a difference between
the OPENPGP document and this one are
out of scope.
Any other issues should be brought forward
thanks
Olafur & Warren
_______________________________________________
dane mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dane
--
I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad
idea in the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair
of pants.
---maf
_______________________________________________
dane mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dane
_______________________________________________
dane mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dane
