IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dane] Second WGLC draft-ietf-dane-smime

Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> Thu, 17 November 2016 09:19 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@nohats.ca>
X-Original-To: dane@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dane@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF742129661 for <dane@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 01:19:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.497
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.497 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.497] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nohats.ca
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 jJT8-MVJ66Jk for <dane@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 01:19:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.nohats.ca (mx.nohats.ca [193.110.157.68]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 67BC91294D4 for <dane@ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 01:19:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3tKFv61kTGz3K8; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 10:19:30 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nohats.ca; s=default; t=1479374370; bh=30KZiMXQsJbrIKCA/1kNcD3la5ljbrT04qUj0QziIfE=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=qGYvTnQVWojc8jY+xIs4eBjLDsK2PbS4l9mbeEdZ7o4YQtIb9DhcMWqY/BZq4E5xh Xk/qlhk9xovstKQVLn1XQQjZzATM8NLyMNESdUm5aN6YQ/L6i+VQuupl3ghr1KHhGd TEGSpCS05p5ElrnWjK7UeJaRqtibGaH9IRtBlkoI=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mx.nohats.ca
Received: from mx.nohats.ca ([IPv6:::1]) by localhost (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:::1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ST_fFYuGR8II; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 10:19:27 +0100 (CET)
Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (206-248-139-105.dsl.teksavvy.com [206.248.139.105]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 10:19:26 +0100 (CET)
Received: by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 271BA35A2B2; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 04:19:25 -0500 (EST)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.10.3 bofh.nohats.ca 271BA35A2B2
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 151FE40DAA4D; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 04:19:25 -0500 (EST)
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 04:19:24 -0500
From: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
To: Olafur Gudmundsson <ogud@ogud.com>, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
In-Reply-To: <1479102464.995918272@apps.rackspace.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.20.1611170410140.28374@bofh.nohats.ca>
References: <1479102464.995918272@apps.rackspace.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (LRH 67 2015-01-07)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dane/-5cO9Ef7y9kUQJOfM9uBydslqvc>
Cc: Dane WG <dane@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dane] Second WGLC draft-ietf-dane-smime
X-BeenThere: dane@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: DNS-based Authentication of Named Entities <dane.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dane>, <mailto:dane-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dane/>
List-Post: <mailto:dane@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dane-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dane>, <mailto:dane-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 09:19:33 -0000

On Mon, 14 Nov 2016, Olafur Gudmundsson wrote:

> This is a second WGLC where the chairs ask the following question 
> Do you support the publication of this document as an EXPERIMENTAL RFC? 

A few minor changes:

Section 3 uses an unnumbered list but the content of one bullet point
refers to "step 2". I recommend changing this to a numbered list as in
RFC7929.

Additionally, this "step 2" should be "step 5", as filed with the
RFC7929 errata: https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=7929

(the second errata is already applied to this document)

Section 10 needs to be updated to refer to RFC7929 :)

I am in favour of publishing this document as an Experimental RFC.

Paul

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email