Re: [dane] Need some feed back

Paul Wouters <> Fri, 08 March 2019 17:19 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0EB4130EBF; Fri, 8 Mar 2019 09:19:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id O_fVw8eOai-v; Fri, 8 Mar 2019 09:19:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D68971289FA; Fri, 8 Mar 2019 09:19:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44GDl53wVkz397; Fri, 8 Mar 2019 18:19:45 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=default; t=1552065585; bh=PUEY6E4U5D+9R21NhKPvloGNkJ5jSi7vC/ly+KNRBf0=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=PVFUfM9mBXnzy18SA2rtbGlsJCoWeRonISKqmRbxR4cNhmqYCoFyCRpGf8CBf7x/w sSGtvW4yBovnsvmxuEUcaLFSrW1BWXvVe0boYpW5qDlkbCbXFdxChVXaNtPtLoJVQY l0A8pHFNnNS9OMqL1F6PbF1UHJyk7oku1s1SGDBM=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
Received: from ([IPv6:::1]) by localhost ( [IPv6:::1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0tvEtRKNk0Rh; Fri, 8 Mar 2019 18:19:44 +0100 (CET)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Fri, 8 Mar 2019 18:19:43 +0100 (CET)
Received: by (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 55E8C5C856; Fri, 8 Mar 2019 12:19:42 -0500 (EST)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 55E8C5C856
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50ADE411602B; Fri, 8 Mar 2019 12:19:42 -0500 (EST)
Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2019 12:19:42 -0500 (EST)
From: Paul Wouters <>
To: Pradeep Kumar Xplorer <>
cc: dane WG list <>,
In-Reply-To: <>
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (LRH 202 2017-01-01)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [dane] Need some feed back
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: DNS-based Authentication of Named Entities <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2019 17:19:50 -0000

On Thu, 7 Mar 2019, Pradeep Kumar Xplorer wrote:


> Subject: [dane] Need some feed back

There are a number of fundamental problems with your document.

First, the document seems to want to tie together and manage protocol
identifiers from a slew of technologies and industry standard groups. That
is not something that the IETF can dictate in an RFC.

Second, it was send to the dane list, but I see nothing related to DANE
or DNSSEC. simiarly, the non-WG hasmat list also seems to be the wrong
place for this discussion, as that is specificly about HTTP only. I have
set the reply-to to the generic to prevent further
followups to end up in these wrong mailing lists.

Third, you seem to be putting in personal anecdotal information of use
cases in a standards document where these do not belong.

Fourth, you are implying to create a new globally unique identier that
is easy to remember in total free form, without any kind of specification.

If you want the IETF to look at your work, you need to separate all these
issues in small defined chunks as see how or if they apply to the IETF
at all. Perhaps ICANN or ITU is a better fit for what you are looking for.

Your document feels like a vague idea, not a specific protocol issue.
I recommend you brainstorm more about your ideas in general, and how
and where it fits into the world. See what is out there, and where it
fits in, and then write very specific drafts. A use case or overview or
architecture document, with a discussion about how current architectures
are not working. And only then start writing drafts that an implementer
could write code for without needing to make any architecture decisions.

It would be good to also become more familiar with IETF and particupate
in more mailing list discussion before writing more drafts. Please see: