On 7/30/19 5:02 PM, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 04:11:36PM -0700, Jim Fenton wrote:
On 7/17/19 12:18 PM, Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker wrote:
The following paragraph (unchanged from my ballot on -07) received only minimal
discussion so far:
I'm also concerned about the
On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 11:16:25PM -0700, Jim Fenton wrote:
> The RFC 7672 definition of Reference Identifier includes the CN-ID, so it
> would be more consistent to include it when referencing 6125 as well.
For the record, RFC7672 has aged a bit since ~2014 when most of it
was written, so at
On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 07:58:07PM -0400, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> On Jul 31, 2019, at 7:05 PM, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
>
> > That seems likely; I don't feel a particular need to introduce skew between
> > reality and the text of the specification. I guess, if the WG wants, we
> > could recommend
On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 09:19:40PM -0400, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 07:02:23PM -0500, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
>
> > > This work was inspired by a paper, "Neither Snow Nor Rain Nor MITM ...An
> > > Empirical Analysis of Email Delivery Security"
> > >
On Jul 31, 2019, at 7:05 PM, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
> That seems likely; I don't feel a particular need to introduce skew between
> reality and the text of the specification. I guess, if the WG wants, we
> could recommend SRV-ID but still allow CN-ID (but this really is up to the
> WG and it is
On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 05:08:42AM -0400, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 11:16:25PM -0700, Jim Fenton wrote:
>
> > The RFC 7672 definition of Reference Identifier includes the CN-ID, so it
> > would be more consistent to include it when referencing 6125 as well.
>
> For the
