As an experiment, I think this document is fine to move forward with. One minor point, though. In Section 9. "Security Considerations", third paragraph, it states in part:
""" The MTA must deliver the message as-is, or encrypt the message before delivering. """ That reads as contradictory, and given the nature of this document, I suspect that the "must" is supposed to be a "might" or "should". - m&m Matt Miller Cisco Systems, Inc. On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 12:47 AM, Olafur Gudmundsson <o...@ogud.com <mailto:o...@ogud.com>> wrote: > > Dear colleagues, > > > > We did the first WGLC in July 9 > > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dane/AjUjw-EXbSt3nlEqt-bvvIacDZM > <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dane/AjUjw-EXbSt3nlEqt-bvvIacDZM> > There was some discussion but the chairs did not receive enough > feedback to judge consensus. > Editors have updated the document to reflect feedback received > during the first WGLC > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dane/lu5PGEBkgpvJA0kHG0u-Q_o7BDk > <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dane/lu5PGEBkgpvJA0kHG0u-Q_o7BDk> > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dane-smime-12 > <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dane-smime-12> > > We have published a document that relates to the experimental use of > PGP keys with DANE RFC7929 > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7929 > <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7929> > > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dane/7hRc1QDlP-i__415-VylSXiwsLE > <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dane/7hRc1QDlP-i__415-VylSXiwsLE> > Many portions of this document are similar to RFC7929 - we realize > that many people do not like the consensus in that document, but > please do not re-open that discussion here. > Just like RFC7929, this is an EXPERIMENTAL RFC. > This is a second WGLC where the chairs ask the following question > Do you support the publication of this document as an EXPERIMENTAL RFC? > This WGLC will end on 28-11-2016 at 23:59 UTC > The document is “equivalent” to RFC7929. > Thus In the Chairs judgement: Only serious objections that do not > apply to 7929. need to be raised to prevent advancement of this ID. > Please state on the mailing list that you have reviewed the document > and RFC7929 and given the criteria above the document is ready to be > published. > If you have concerns related to the descriptions in the ID please > flag those as such. > Olafur & Warren > > _______________________________________________ > dane mailing list > dane@ietf.org <mailto:dane@ietf.org> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dane > <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dane> > > > > > -- > DougM at Work > > > _______________________________________________ > dane mailing list > dane@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dane >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ dane mailing list dane@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dane
