[dane] Deployment focus? Re: IETF 85 - meet or not to meet?

Dan York <dan-ietf@danyork.org> Mon, 01 October 2012 13:38 UTC

Return-Path: <dan-ietf@danyork.org>
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 1915A11E810E for <dane@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Oct 2012 06:38:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.619
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.619 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.079, BAYES_20=-0.74, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_23=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_57=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id s30+NE54bamw for <dane@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Oct 2012 06:38:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qa0-f51.google.com (mail-qa0-f51.google.com [209.85.216.51]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 583D31F0D31 for <dane@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Oct 2012 06:38:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qabj40 with SMTP id j40so1631111qab.10 for <dane@ietf.org>; Mon, 01 Oct 2012 06:37:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :message-id:references:to:x-mailer:x-gm-message-state; bh=UFMlZPBFJDSb1ImRUrJuMwh3LkL039byWUROI+n36Qs=; b=nXtpasvGcIFRlLXxLg+pc38PNEmtto5ENuj6i+u6ZNWx+JkcsNko4xnTc7zewT8L3H LrA22R80TaglnM4dsbDdiN71jzfPK9WSuz8bW+Ai819JPXs861Q8cxL3K65E3ma9IeiY ROGOfc1MjBkPmC4OM1IKxNVomsMV41Dk9zuviHphQ1O/3T0oECEMebZw47neHkiMV/so jnAbWumRUZy/OypRv5ZMHDOM3P9P0B7XEzq0ZJ/hPqLocxrIJBGrkD4hQa00xqsduWwp zaT3qxH1B+60IGTOMqJt/Y8FTfaXYmlhvUiwZM3FQDDHu0WYz+QyRbhx0R4zBB9gwthV qLDg==
Received: by 10.224.179.7 with SMTP id bo7mr36617497qab.96.1349098674731; Mon, 01 Oct 2012 06:37:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.20.12.152] (cpe-74-75-92-114.maine.res.rr.com. [74.75.92.114]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id em3sm24503534qab.5.2012.10.01.06.37.53 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 01 Oct 2012 06:37:54 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1257)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_B00F4439-2651-440C-AD66-17E44C5E29FE"
From: Dan York <dan-ietf@danyork.org>
In-Reply-To: <C73CE37F-C34D-4824-AF11-D03F14AE3015@kumari.net>
Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2012 09:37:51 -0400
Message-Id: <15ED757A-9B2F-45CD-A1B6-0A0C8DFC2397@danyork.org>
References: <BD9F1901-911A-49EB-9390-B18D8A9D0B30@nic.cz> <FBCB9053-91C3-4EBC-874E-97067A922E49@nic.cz> <C73CE37F-C34D-4824-AF11-D03F14AE3015@kumari.net>
To: Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1257)
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnXGvgAWX/DpcXJktmq7hSeR2APX0Ovbi2dQQaRLeEPXJF6DG5FqXA7RK8ScltG5fAAng4J
Cc: dane WG list <dane@ietf.org>
Subject: [dane] Deployment focus? Re: IETF 85 - meet or not to meet?
X-BeenThere: dane@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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, 01 Oct 2012 13:38:15 -0000

Warren and Ondřej,

>>> Any comments (if saying yes, please also say why and attach an agenda item suggestion :))?

I see more of a "strategic" reason for meeting at IETF 85 in that I am seeing a lot of positive response to the value of DANE when I am speaking about it within industry circles. It's clear to me that DANE can provide real value to companies/organizations and that it can also provide a strong reason for organizations to be interested in deploying DNSSEC.  I guess I feel that NOT meeting feels a bit like "taking the foot off the gas pedal" at a time when we need to be pushing people towards getting DANE deployed.

Having said that, I agree there's not much point in meeting if there is only one draft to discuss.

Could we perhaps have an agenda more focused on the question of "what comes next?" and looking at obstacles to DANE deployment?

Some ideas:
 - Discussion of what needs to be done to get DANE more widely deployed, specifically:
      1. What steps do we collectively need to take to get adding DANE support on the radar of browser vendors?
      2. What do we need to do to get more registrars/DNS hosting providers accepting TLSA records?
      3. What do we need to do to get more organizations publishing TLSA records? 
 - Exploration of the various tools available (some discussed recently on the list) and identification of tools that need to be created (Could we perhaps include some quick demos of those tools?)
 - Discussion of what "Using DANE With $foo Protocol" documents would be logical to create (where $foo is the various networking protocols) and identification of people willing to create such drafts
 - Discussion of ways to measure DANE deployment (how can we do that?)

I'd certainly be willing to present and lead a discussion on the first of those ideas and to participate in other discussions.  If a draft is needed for agenda time I can probably work something up before the -00 deadine of October 15th.  

We could of course discuss Paul's S/MIME draft as it fits into the "Using DANE with $foo" category.

Thoughts?  Comments?

Dan

On Sep 30, 2012, at 5:00 AM, Warren Kumari wrote:

> 
> On Sep 24, 2012, at 3:10 PM, Ondřej Surý <ondrej.sury@nic.cz> wrote:
> 
>> More specifically, we are going to cancel the session after Oct 4th unless we hear from you that you want to meet and we have an agenda.
>> 
> 
> Apologies all -- due to the contention for meeting slots and the difficulty of scheduling all these slots we are moving the cutoff to the 2nd.
> 
> W
> 
> 
>> O.
>> 
>> On 23. 9. 2012, at 12:28, Ondřej Surý <ondrej.sury@nic.cz> wrote:
>> 
>>> Dear WG,
>>> 
>>> we did register a slot for IETF 85 (just in case), but from the volume of the mailing list and just one WG draft (we have just adopted), we are quite unsure if there's enough interest in meeting.
>>> 
>>> I am personally inclined of canceling this meeting and reschedule for next year.
>>> 
>>> Any comments (if saying yes, please also say why and attach an agenda item suggestion :))?
>>> 
>>> O.
>>> --
>>> Ondřej Surý -- Chief Science Officer
>>> -------------------------------------------
>>> CZ.NIC, z.s.p.o.    --    Laboratoře CZ.NIC
>>> Americka 23, 120 00 Praha 2, Czech Republic
>>> mailto:ondrej.sury@nic.cz    http://nic.cz/
>>> tel:+420.222745110       fax:+420.222745112
>>> -------------------------------------------
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> dane mailing list
>>> dane@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dane
>> 
>> --
>> Ondřej Surý -- Chief Science Officer
>> -------------------------------------------
>> CZ.NIC, z.s.p.o.    --    Laboratoře CZ.NIC
>> Americka 23, 120 00 Praha 2, Czech Republic
>> mailto:ondrej.sury@nic.cz    http://nic.cz/
>> tel:+420.222745110       fax:+420.222745112
>> -------------------------------------------
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> dane mailing list
>> dane@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dane
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dane mailing list
> dane@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dane

-- 
Dan York  dyork@lodestar2.com
http://www.danyork.me/   skype:danyork
Phone: +1-802-735-1624
Twitter - http://twitter.com/danyork