Re: [Acme] AD Review of draft-ietf-acme-email-smime-07

Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> Fri, 29 May 2020 17:07 UTC

Return-Path: <housley@vigilsec.com>
X-Original-To: acme@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: acme@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95BB63A0E0C for <acme@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 May 2020 10:07:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hI51lwVEgWxC for <acme@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 May 2020 10:07:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.smeinc.net (mail.smeinc.net [209.135.209.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 54A303A0E0B for <acme@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 May 2020 10:07:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0926300B03 for <acme@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 May 2020 13:07:43 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mail.smeinc.net
Received: from mail.smeinc.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.smeinc.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id Lr1sLJOJEhSe for <acme@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 May 2020 13:07:42 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from a860b60074bd.fios-router.home (pool-72-66-113-56.washdc.fios.verizon.net [72.66.113.56]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 97525300A01; Fri, 29 May 2020 13:07:42 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.14\))
From: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
In-Reply-To: <c8762036-fc0d-1012-98f3-4bf1ce72cb25@isode.com>
Date: Fri, 29 May 2020 13:07:44 -0400
Cc: "Roman D. Danyliw" <rdd@cert.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <4B141F9D-3F3C-41F8-ABA4-98A3EEAEDB7B@vigilsec.com>
References: <8ecce2820f344c34a124bffa95bd20b6@cert.org> <c8762036-fc0d-1012-98f3-4bf1ce72cb25@isode.com>
To: IETF ACME <acme@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.14)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/acme/SFmDqLAQCnJr1GvFdE3tiCknQOs>
Subject: Re: [Acme] AD Review of draft-ietf-acme-email-smime-07
X-BeenThere: acme@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Automated Certificate Management Environment <acme.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/acme>, <mailto:acme-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/acme/>
List-Post: <mailto:acme@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:acme-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme>, <mailto:acme-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 May 2020 17:07:48 -0000


> On May 29, 2020, at 12:38 PM, Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Roman,
> 
> Thank you for your detailed review.
> 
> On 22/05/2020 15:54, Roman Danyliw wrote:
>> Hi!
>> 
>> I completed my AD review of draft-ietf-acme-email-smime-07.  Thanks for the work on this document.  Here is my feedback:
>> 
>> ** What was the thinking behind the document status being informational?
> I don't think there was much thought or discussion of this point. I am flexible. I think when I started it was not very clear how much support/interest there were in this, but I noticed more interest over time.

I would like to see standards track.  I wonder what other in the ACME WG think.

Russ