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

["Osterweil, Eric" <[e-mail]>]

On Oct 17, 2014, at 10:46 AM, Paul Hoffman <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On Oct 15, 2014, at 10:46 PM, Sean Turner <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>> The idea that the proponents of these changes need to go change the TLSA spec because you think it applies to both seems a little bit excessive.  If you think the changes apply to both, then great feel free to go and propose those changes get made in the TLSA spec; I see no reason to burden the proponents of these changes with that job.
> 
> Nor do I see a reason for the proponents to burden us with making the changes here if there is no support for them. As you probably saw, another WG member pointed out that there were significant technical issues with the wording of the revocation proposal. If we incorporate that into the S/MIME draft, that draft will get delayed while the proponents get their wording right.

Hey Paul,

TLS and S/MIME use pretty different security models (session vs. object security), so necessarily coupling the RRs doesn’t seem to make sense.  In addition, to echo what others have already said on the list, I really don’t think it is reasonable to gate updates to the SMIMEA proposal on updating TLSA.

> A better process would be for the proponents to offer a standalone draft for the idea that will be an extension that would be usable to both TLSA and SMIMEA and any other documents that come later.

Just by looking at the list, it seems like there are a number of voices that disagree with you on this.  Also, isn’t the SMIMEA work still an evolving draft?  What else does one need besides: articulated rationale, proposed requirements, operational data, suggested text, and running code from multiple people in order to support suggested revisions?  Please accept the proposed SMIMEA changes into the SMIMEA draft so that we can make progress on this work.

Thank you,

Eric