IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

John Gilmore <gnu@toad.com> Sun, 08 December 2013 02:34 UTC

Return-Path: <gnu@toad.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 BFF9C1AE48C for <dane@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 7 Dec 2013 18:34:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.452
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.452 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_BRBL_LASTEXT=1.449, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-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 WZFyRg9UsQhC for <dane@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 7 Dec 2013 18:34:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from new.toad.com (new.toad.com [209.237.225.253]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07A891AE0E9 for <dane@ietf.org>; Sat, 7 Dec 2013 18:34:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from new.toad.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by new.toad.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id rB82YeoW029387; Sat, 7 Dec 2013 18:34:40 -0800
Message-Id: <201312080234.rB82YeoW029387@new.toad.com>
To: Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>
In-reply-to: <E78C07CA-B742-43B2-8848-33DEB22A8014@kumari.net>
References: <A06891E1-01E0-40CC-A9A2-171CAA39AB79@kumari.net> <20131205175314.GH761@mournblade.imrryr.org> <E78C07CA-B742-43B2-8848-33DEB22A8014@kumari.net>
Comments: In-reply-to Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net> message dated "Fri, 06 Dec 2013 15:00:17 -0500."
Date: Sat, 07 Dec 2013 18:34:40 -0800
From: John Gilmore <gnu@toad.com>
Cc: dane@ietf.org
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: Sun, 08 Dec 2013 02:34:46 -0000

> I’m going to extend this LC to Wednesday and suggest that, if we don’t get consensus on this we simply stick with what is in the current (draft-ietf-dane-registry-acronyms-02) document.  ...
> Any (strong) objections?

Yes, I object.  If there is no consensus on acronyms, we should stick
with what is in the current RFC 6698, rather than forwarding an
acronym proposal for adoption as a standard, even though we can't
agree on what it should say.  It's unnecessary, which probably
explains the paucity of responses, and divisive among those who did
respond.  It should be abandoned.

	John

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email