IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dane] AD review of draft-ietf-dane-smime-14

Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Sun, 12 February 2017 22:31 UTC

Return-Path: <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
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 66881128824 for <dane@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 12 Feb 2017 14:31:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.302
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.302 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cs.tcd.ie
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 wvafHxuGmOkZ for <dane@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 12 Feb 2017 14:31:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 89009120725 for <dane@ietf.org>; Sun, 12 Feb 2017 14:31:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36171BE5B; Sun, 12 Feb 2017 22:31:20 +0000 (GMT)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at scss.tcd.ie
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id altdHU2DxlTL; Sun, 12 Feb 2017 22:31:19 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from [10.87.48.210] (95-45-153-252-dynamic.agg2.phb.bdt-fng.eircom.net [95.45.153.252]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A204BBE56; Sun, 12 Feb 2017 22:31:18 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cs.tcd.ie; s=mail; t=1486938679; bh=crMQv+VhfmYc6RVcuaAFYGkJEn8wjQsS5VTMi3tGdzo=; h=Subject:To:References:Cc:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=WDmZ5dqpoqWFzKuU8IjbbnMpGNR8mVDw+qcuBVeNev/Bf5N2ehQ+ULfZZaEM1Oa0+ AcGrMnm6N+hrP8uYDMi8wFR7OdCzHHR1LSiDlI65SIe0RaIVisHOx1hsmeFOyr1jaU mTRVezWeD8D4wsTMMX6LIOgtXPXJyuTLhJ8mvkEA=
To: Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>, Marc Groeneweg <Marc.Groeneweg@sidn.nl>
References: <c6dc5069-da43-2e70-d5e6-d0e200fb8523@cs.tcd.ie> <20170209041739.17865.qmail@ary.lan> <22938E71-2963-4C6B-BE94-16C7E30FBFD0@sidn.nl> <CAHw9_i+kau8q6+rKg-ndKYixqhxZQNHCYA2BZmvwVbPR+fLEKg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Openpgp: id=D66EA7906F0B897FB2E97D582F3C8736805F8DA2; url=
Message-ID: <03eebf14-be00-911d-a388-8e18438a4ecd@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2017 22:31:17 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAHw9_i+kau8q6+rKg-ndKYixqhxZQNHCYA2BZmvwVbPR+fLEKg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="AIBeSWbv17cdPHIKEcA0N5FRBwl3rN8kc"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dane/Ds4N1Au3lVWK52CC3PejHyYdb7o>
Cc: "dane@ietf.org" <dane@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dane] AD review of draft-ietf-dane-smime-14
X-BeenThere: dane@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 12 Feb 2017 22:31:24 -0000

Hiya,

On 12/02/17 22:27, Warren Kumari wrote:
>  do you feel that we need to try and get the
> IPR statement updated? 

I not sure but if that question is addressed at me, then I
am not trying to insist that the IPR declaration be updated,
but just want to check that the WG are ok with that "later"
statement, despite it now being "much later."

> (Remembering that, AFAIK, we cannot do anything
> other than ask nicely...)

Yep. We can't force anyone to update a declaration and as
noted there was at least one other case where a year went
by with folks asking and not seeing any update happen in
a quite similar case involving the same entity.

S.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email