Re: [dane] Working group Last call: draft-ietf-dane-smime-11.txt

[Jim Schaad <[e-mail]>]

A more complete statement might have been nicer, but I will assume that
anybody implementing this knows about S/MIME capabilities. 

What is there is adequate to address my comment.

Jim


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Hoffman [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Sunday, July 31, 2016 6:08 PM
> To: Jim Schaad <[e-mail]>
> Cc: dane WG list <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: [dane] Working group Last call: draft-ietf-dane-smime-11.txt
> 
> On 25 Jul 2016, at 7:02, Jim Schaad wrote:
> 
> >>> I also wanted to make sure people (including the authors) had seen:
> >>> https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dane/current/msg08382.html
> >>
> >> This has come up in the past when discussing SMIME. One suggestion
> >> was to use a different prefix (like _encrypt. and _sign). When this
> >> was brought up, the patent status of this was not entirely clear, and
> >> there were privacy discussions raised on exposing queries to the
> >> purpose of the query. Perhaps the document can state that if the
> >> certificate is obtained via SMIMEA, it should be checked whether it
> >> is suitable for the task to perform. And that publishers are
> >> encouraged to publish SMIMEA records for certificates that allow both
> >> signing and encryption.
> >> But this latter approach did not have a clear consensus.
> >
> > This is not the issue that my message was designed to highlight.  In
> > S/MIME it is possible to say which of the message formats and which
> > content encryption algorithms are supported by a client.  This is not
> > the same as designating if a certificate is being used for encryption
> > or signing.
> 
> We will add a mention of RFC 4262 to the draft.
> 
> --Paul Hoffman