Re: [dane] draft-ietf-dane-smime

Paul Hoffman <> Fri, 17 October 2014 14:46 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DCC11A0047 for <>; Fri, 17 Oct 2014 07:46:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.647
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.647 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7HHHFpuQ2RAX for <>; Fri, 17 Oct 2014 07:46:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (Hoffman.Proper.COM []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 278A31A001B for <>; Fri, 17 Oct 2014 07:46:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.9/8.14.7) with ESMTP id s9HEkje6013288 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 17 Oct 2014 07:46:47 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from
X-Authentication-Warning: Host [] claimed to be []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
From: Paul Hoffman <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2014 07:46:43 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <>
To: Sean Turner <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Cc: "<>" <>
Subject: Re: [dane] draft-ietf-dane-smime
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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, 17 Oct 2014 14:46:51 -0000

On Oct 15, 2014, at 10:46 PM, Sean Turner <> wrote:

> The idea that the proponents of these changes need to go change the TLSA spec because you think it applies to both seems a little bit excessive.  If you think the changes apply to both, then great feel free to go and propose those changes get made in the TLSA spec; I see no reason to burden the proponents of these changes with that job.

Nor do I see a reason for the proponents to burden us with making the changes here if there is no support for them. As you probably saw, another WG member pointed out that there were significant technical issues with the wording of the revocation proposal. If we incorporate that into the S/MIME draft, that draft will get delayed while the proponents get their wording right.

A better process would be for the proponents to offer a standalone draft for the idea that will be an extension that would be usable to both TLSA and SMIMEA and any other documents that come later.

--Paul Hoffman