[Dance] Robert Wilton's No Objection on charter-ietf-dance-00-01: (with COMMENT)

Robert Wilton via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Wed, 08 September 2021 12:58 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: dance@ietf.org
Delivered-To: dance@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D64C3A2779; Wed, 8 Sep 2021 05:58:45 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Robert Wilton via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: dance-chairs@ietf.org, dance@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 7.37.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Robert Wilton <rwilton@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <163110592446.355.15107144160207396197@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2021 05:58:45 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dance/wr34OJYFzRRWu6QfxAsPwnXYBFg>
Subject: [Dance] Robert Wilton's No Objection on charter-ietf-dance-00-01: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: dance@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: DANE Authentication for Network Clients Everywhere <dance.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dance>, <mailto:dance-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dance/>
List-Post: <mailto:dance@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dance-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dance>, <mailto:dance-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2021 12:58:45 -0000

Robert Wilton has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-dance-00-01: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)



The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-dance/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Sounds useful.

I'm wondering whether restricting the initial use case to TLS client only will
limit its usefulness in IOT onboarding?

I'm not sure if it is important, but from the scope of work, it is unclear to
me whether the format of DNS DANE records would need to change, or whether this
is use a new use of the existing DANE records.

Nits:

Para 3:
"DANE builds on" => "DANE built on"?  Or otherwise perhaps change "DANE did
not" to "the DANE WG did not".

Para 4:
"large deployment" => "large deployments"?

Are the milestone dates correct (i.e., the architecture and use cases is
expected to be standardized after the solution)?