IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Wes Hardaker <wjhns1@hardakers.net> Wed, 11 December 2013 17:55 UTC

Return-Path: <wjhns1@hardakers.net>
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 E31951AE069 for <dane@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Dec 2013 09:55:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 AJVOuX_yFtHf for <dane@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Dec 2013 09:55:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.hardakers.net (mail.hardakers.net [168.150.236.43]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9EBE91AE03E for <dane@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Dec 2013 09:55:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:1f00:187:75b2:586f:4b28:6a62]) by mail.hardakers.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6F098290BD; Wed, 11 Dec 2013 09:55:09 -0800 (PST)
From: Wes Hardaker <wjhns1@hardakers.net>
To: John Gilmore <gnu@toad.com>
References: <A06891E1-01E0-40CC-A9A2-171CAA39AB79@kumari.net> <20131205175314.GH761@mournblade.imrryr.org> <E78C07CA-B742-43B2-8848-33DEB22A8014@kumari.net> <201312080234.rB82YeoW029387@new.toad.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 09:55:08 -0800
In-Reply-To: <201312080234.rB82YeoW029387@new.toad.com> (John Gilmore's message of "Sat, 07 Dec 2013 18:34:40 -0800")
Message-ID: <0lvbyvnugz.fsf@wjh.hardakers.net>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.130008 (Ma Gnus v0.8) Emacs/24.2 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
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: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 17:55:17 -0000

John Gilmore <gnu@toad.com> writes:

> It's unnecessary, which probably explains the paucity of responses,
> and divisive among those who did respond.  It should be abandoned.

I disagree because of the huge number of conversations I've had with
people where they just couldn't get the three-tuple numbers in their
head.

A consensus call on "which acronyms do you state are absolutely abysmal"
might end up with a better set of "ok, most people don't out-right-hate
those" than a voting competition where only the favorite should win.
EG, I'd be happier with both PKIX-CA or PKIX-TA over "0" and "1" even
though my preferred choice is still PKIX-TA.
-- 
Wes Hardaker
Parsons

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email