On 2016-04-28 13:05, Stephen Farrell wrote: > > Hi Jeff, > > On 27/04/16 00:33, =JeffH wrote: >> On 4/11/16, 1:45 PM, "Stephen Farrell" <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > With no hats, I'd like to argue that the WG should pursue >> > the "webby" STS proposal, ... >> >> just to ensure this thread is pedantically clear, when you said the >> above, you were referring to.. >> >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-margolis-smtp-sts >> (which has now morphed in to two separate I-Ds) > > Well not particularly those drafts but yes I was referring to the > ideas embodied therein. (But yeah, those are the drafts we have > with those ideas in:-)
yes > >> >> ..and possibly also.. >> >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-uta-email-deep > > To the extent we want deep to be consistent with the above drafts, > yes, the same discussion should be relevant. > > And in case it helps, I think we do need the webby approach in > addition to the DNSSEC based approach because DNSSEC, while being > the correct solution here, doesn't yet have sufficient deployment. > I also hope that the webby approach will not further damage DNSSEC > deployment in this case - I figure DANE/DNSSEC will have enough > advantages over the webby approach that it'll continue to be used, > and hence that at least some of the biggest mail providers will > need to at least be able to verify DANE/DNSSEC stuff so the webby > thing will I hope end up as a stopgap. > > Cheers, > S. > >> >> ..yes? >> >> thx, hth, >> >> =JeffH >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Uta mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > Uta mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta > _______________________________________________ Uta mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta
