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

["Paul Hoffman" <[e-mail]>]

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