IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dane] Start of WGLC for draft-ietf-dane-openpgpkey - *please* review.

Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> Sat, 14 March 2015 18:40 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@nohats.ca>
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 E51E11A00FE for <dane@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 14 Mar 2015 11:40:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.01
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.01 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 dT4iM5Wv1BLl for <dane@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 14 Mar 2015 11:40:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.nohats.ca (mx.nohats.ca [193.110.157.68]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DBB331A00EF for <dane@ietf.org>; Sat, 14 Mar 2015 11:40:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3l4CPg2BYHz449; Sat, 14 Mar 2015 19:40:23 +0100 (CET)
Authentication-Results: mx.nohats.ca; dkim=pass reason="1024-bit key; unprotected key" header.d=nohats.ca header.i=@nohats.ca header.b=uf4Fmg8V; dkim-adsp=pass
X-OPENPGPKEY: Message passed unmodified
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mx.nohats.ca
Received: from mx.nohats.ca ([IPv6:::1]) by localhost (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:::1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uhsbKpwqcgtG; Sat, 14 Mar 2015 19:40:22 +0100 (CET)
Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (206-248-139-105.dsl.teksavvy.com [206.248.139.105]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Sat, 14 Mar 2015 19:40:22 +0100 (CET)
Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (bofh.nohats.ca [127.0.0.1]) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91EC880A01; Sat, 14 Mar 2015 14:40:21 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nohats.ca; s=default; t=1426358421; bh=QiZ1HVVJGQCggNeFgmwaiodP02qsIn013GnzCsa/tRo=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=uf4Fmg8VdE1V8rs9QJfKSIKkkkldUBlv20cR2IPok0Lnyi1p7Hv3XETJOYbgBybXp Lyi01QHZXA65Pex0YG13lEw09pdUp5mgOQ0BscaULQPC0agFftZG9Z3r3rEyEI41EG R4KWjh9yb75Be1xUj5RIUJnyU5alqckNeDdP9aRI=
Received: from localhost (paul@localhost) by bofh.nohats.ca (8.14.7/8.14.7/Submit) with ESMTP id t2EIeKh7015845; Sat, 14 Mar 2015 14:40:21 -0400
X-Authentication-Warning: bofh.nohats.ca: paul owned process doing -bs
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2015 14:40:20 -0400
From: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
To: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
In-Reply-To: <20150314163635.29627.qmail@ary.lan>
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.10.1503141438420.10351@bofh.nohats.ca>
References: <20150314163635.29627.qmail@ary.lan>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.10 (LFD 1266 2009-07-14)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dane/X9-3W1d042ujqmurioG3o6nAPHk>
Cc: dane@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dane] Start of WGLC for draft-ietf-dane-openpgpkey - *please* review.
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: Sat, 14 Mar 2015 18:40:28 -0000

On Sat, 14 Mar 2015, John Levine wrote:

> In article <CAHw9_iLafyHnbnii2huxoR48rybydu-tT4rScm6oo9p==ytkyw@mail.gmail.com> you write:
>> Thanks everyone for your feedback and comments, the WGLC is now closed.
>>
>> I think that it looks like there is strong consensus for publishing,
>> but I'm hoping to re-read all the comments on my flight home
>> (currently sitting in TXL) to see if I've missed anything obvious...
>
> I am fairly sure that the current text in section 3.1 will never get
> through the IESG.  Telling people to guess e-mail addresses is, well,
> just wrong.
>
> The draft is fixable, but it's a fairly significant change.

Section 3.1 was never meant to dictate processing. It was only meant to
warn about email address mapping services out in the wild that we know
about. I can try and come up with better text if that solved this issue
for you.

Paul

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email