IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

SM <sm@resistor.net> Mon, 01 October 2012 15:46 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@resistor.net>
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 77DEB1F0D28 for <dane@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Oct 2012 08:46:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.592
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.592 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.007, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 Ylm1Y+NiXDeD for <dane@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Oct 2012 08:46:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6AB91F0C7E for <dane@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Oct 2012 08:46:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SUBMAN.resistor.net (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q91FkMpT012322 for <dane@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Oct 2012 08:46:30 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1349106391; bh=s9b0bOqoiPRi5IPpOkjguUM7krIhxGMheuqH3snGyI8=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Cc; b=v/JjRdlUMUUEZxPZn8pucnV/ej+tfdz4w6XT5mhyuzvTE/mhYVTVq1VRT9pzM7LHA bvG02qcKnI3kFMeO/OvPo8q1T47R723R6Eezi0sdTB+UE/glSC50EuxRrrYfqu60Yg zwPsWtMMKNM866FdZAjt39XTbDL3U55khTjS0Ng4=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1349106391; i=@resistor.net; bh=s9b0bOqoiPRi5IPpOkjguUM7krIhxGMheuqH3snGyI8=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Cc; b=gIKqeZPlMvyhV6IoRxlNDN3yWFSc9RxeHcJuzlpxxxhFlHGgkyRm+0HjKzFI7yR1V rxRH962pd9JSbrBiQzfPS3l+NQ66Ak0TS3EQOmOegwDa8TsQ6LNkuHwHYd1Kzo2chB S7M8wssYomJy0OXAMSv/VTvL6IRxcDn9pKbsw5w0=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20121001081410.0b34dab0@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2012 08:22:52 -0700
To: dane@ietf.org
From: SM <sm@resistor.net>
In-Reply-To: <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> <15ED757A-9B2F-45CD-A1B6-0A0C8DFC2397@danyork.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Subject: Re: [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 15:46:32 -0000

At 06:37 01-10-2012, Dan York wrote:
>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?

Send patch is usually a first step.

>       2. What do we need to do to get more registrars/DNS hosting 
> providers accepting TLSA records?

There have been some long threads about a similar question.

In my opinion it's not making effective use of a meeting slot if 
there isn't any WG issues which need face time.

Regards,
-sm

v2.28.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status