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

[Matt Miller <[e-mail]>]

As an experiment, I think this document is fine to move forward with.

One minor point, though.  In Section 9. "Security Considerations", third
paragraph, it states in part:

"""
   The MTA must deliver the message as-is, or encrypt the message before
   delivering.
"""

That reads as contradictory, and given the nature of this document, I
suspect that the "must" is supposed to be a "might" or "should".


- m&m

Matt Miller
Cisco Systems, Inc.

On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 12:47 AM, Olafur Gudmundsson <[e-mail]
<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> 
>     Dear colleagues, 
> 
>      
> 
>     We did the first WGLC in July 9 
> 
>     https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dane/AjUjw-EXbSt3nlEqt-bvvIacDZM
>     <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dane/AjUjw-EXbSt3nlEqt-bvvIacDZM>
>     There was some discussion but the chairs did not receive enough
>     feedback to judge consensus. 
>     Editors have updated the document to reflect feedback received
>     during the first WGLC 
>     https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dane/lu5PGEBkgpvJA0kHG0u-Q_o7BDk
>     <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dane/lu5PGEBkgpvJA0kHG0u-Q_o7BDk>
> 
>     https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dane-smime-12
>     <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dane-smime-12>
> 
>     We have published a document that relates to the experimental use of
>     PGP keys with DANE  RFC7929
> 
>     https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7929
>     <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7929>
> 
>     https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dane/7hRc1QDlP-i__415-VylSXiwsLE
>     <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dane/7hRc1QDlP-i__415-VylSXiwsLE>
>     Many portions of this document are similar to RFC7929 - we realize
>     that many people do not like the consensus in that document, but
>     please do not re-open that discussion here.
>     Just like RFC7929, this is an EXPERIMENTAL RFC.
>     This is a second WGLC where the chairs ask the following question 
>     Do you support the publication of this document as an EXPERIMENTAL RFC? 
>     This WGLC will end on 28-11-2016 at 23:59 UTC 
>     The document is “equivalent” to RFC7929.
>     Thus In the Chairs judgement:  Only serious objections that do not
>     apply to 7929. need to be raised to prevent advancement of  this ID.  
>     Please state on the mailing list that you have reviewed the document
>     and RFC7929 and given the criteria above the document is ready to be
>     published. 
>     If you have concerns related to the descriptions in the ID please
>     flag those as such. 
>     Olafur & Warren 
> 
>     _______________________________________________
>     dane mailing list
>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dane
>     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dane>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> DougM at Work
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dane mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dane
>