IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dane] On the PKIX-TA / PKIX-CA question… [ One week WGLC ]

James Cloos <cloos@jhcloos.com> Mon, 02 December 2013 21:37 UTC

Return-Path: <cloos@jhcloos.com>
X-Original-To: dane@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dane@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FC781ADF7B for <dane@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Dec 2013 13:37:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.702
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.702 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=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 u5mBGRzTqABR for <dane@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Dec 2013 13:36:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ore.jhcloos.com (ore.jhcloos.com [IPv6:2604:2880::b24d:a297]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73D221ADF10 for <dane@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Dec 2013 13:36:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: by ore.jhcloos.com (Postfix, from userid 10) id 37E951DF55; Mon, 2 Dec 2013 21:36:54 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=jhcloos.com; s=ore13; t=1386020214; bh=PobLUHMyWmPHDQoZInMKhRH6bdPd4e2E0dMQl+HK5sE=; h=From:To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=j+O443eeXgOPbCDnUOT5TDb5DgJ9fPSth8SqjPxx6nWqL+4mUYMc8o762c61GadCH of3Mal587T5S6tozj3U27jE3nPomPdfnyouAn/krkQZHV/fyqH6gxURcGtQAsOeRnD W06jKhMJbh6u7SQMHFZyycbd9wNMu2EThLmWFcB6zCw==
Received: by carbon.jhcloos.org (Postfix, from userid 500) id 8F10360027; Mon, 2 Dec 2013 21:34:37 +0000 (UTC)
From: James Cloos <cloos@jhcloos.com>
To: dane@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <A06891E1-01E0-40CC-A9A2-171CAA39AB79@kumari.net> (Warren Kumari's message of "Mon, 2 Dec 2013 13:44:49 -0500")
References: <A06891E1-01E0-40CC-A9A2-171CAA39AB79@kumari.net>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.130008 (Ma Gnus v0.8) Emacs/24.3.50 (gnu/linux)
Face: iVBORw0KGgoAAAANSUhEUgAAABAAAAAQAgMAAABinRfyAAAACVBMVEX///8ZGXBQKKnCrDQ3 AAAAJElEQVQImWNgQAAXzwQg4SKASgAlXIEEiwsSIYBEcLaAtMEAADJnB+kKcKioAAAAAElFTkSu QmCC
Copyright: Copyright 2013 James Cloos
OpenPGP: ED7DAEA6; url=http://jhcloos.com/public_key/0xED7DAEA6.asc
OpenPGP-Fingerprint: E9E9 F828 61A4 6EA9 0F2B 63E7 997A 9F17 ED7D AEA6
Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2013 16:34:37 -0500
Message-ID: <m3mwkjuebd.fsf@carbon.jhcloos.org>
Lines: 6
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
X-Hashcash: 1:30:131202:dane@ietf.org::Wzhr1PSTR8+8lM3M:000aF6jp
Subject: Re: [dane] On the PKIX-TA / PKIX-CA question… [ One week WGLC ]
X-BeenThere: dane@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Mon, 02 Dec 2013 21:37:00 -0000

My pref is that the suffices be the same for each of the prefices,
therefore PKIX-TA vs DANE-TA vs PKIX-EE vs DANE-EE.

-JimC
--
James Cloos <cloos@jhcloos.com>         OpenPGP: 1024D/ED7DAEA6

v2.30.2 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status