Re: [dane] Deployment focus? Re: IETF 85 - meet or not to meet?
Dan York <dan-ietf@danyork.org> Mon, 01 October 2012 15:07 UTC
Return-Path: <dan-ietf@danyork.org>
X-Original-To: dane@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dane@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E1DA1F0D17 for <dane@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Oct 2012 08:07:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.012
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.012 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.986, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_57=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ffYSSmlKxNaa for <dane@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Oct 2012 08:07:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qc0-f172.google.com (mail-qc0-f172.google.com [209.85.216.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92B3611E8117 for <dane@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Oct 2012 08:07:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qcac10 with SMTP id c10so2966971qca.31 for <dane@ietf.org>; Mon, 01 Oct 2012 08:07:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :message-id:references:to:x-mailer:x-gm-message-state; bh=CIDsP6n1185msHgzRPsdQlBrYs2/8aTjmhGsTLxcmQk=; b=EfZXVbH8e8nj2WNHu6JE++pYRTHBQdeTqzNfAuMfkGcsALlohgMOyD3ZvSYENXCUP/ bi+4WXMY9MuejPCRy833CBGzBSWvmdQz2WJMFo8OAkRCntWuM031mtMHn/3429cqTVjh f7+DGfDAoObV/nxs1bjbHIBZNB1lexRwJYWp+vtUfc1/Dx5m7eUtCpE/Czv+t9OcFyYb F4phwUdjNIilTudpOKyMJgfwZyYVSQxx2g3C7JzOK1+H+ZoyTIF1ljgtDE/7ETQccqPN 34TtWMSRUEDs1HremOSsokDvoWdK5zQU+XvI+YsN0/lAUyVhiBLr0/MTzrGt4MGCVvSW /VcQ==
Received: by 10.224.168.83 with SMTP id t19mr37650269qay.8.1349104036439; Mon, 01 Oct 2012 08:07:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2001:470:1f07:309:d9e7:4498:ffca:c4b3? ([2001:470:1f07:309:d9e7:4498:ffca:c4b3]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id gx8sm24752331qab.12.2012.10.01.08.07.15 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 01 Oct 2012 08:07:15 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1257)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_319FAF05-F497-460E-928B-FD9A6FF51F52"
From: Dan York <dan-ietf@danyork.org>
In-Reply-To: <76960946-F768-422B-A76A-17D951D29C8C@vpnc.org>
Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2012 11:07:13 -0400
Message-Id: <F18CD53D-8F98-409F-881C-EC56824931C4@danyork.org>
References: <BD9F1901-911A-49EB-9390-B18D8A9D0B30@nic.cz> <FBCB9053-91C3-4EBC-874E-97067A922E49@nic.cz> <C73CE37F-C34D-4824-AF11-D03F14AE3015@kumari.net> <15ED757A-9B2F-45CD-A1B6-0A0C8DFC2397@danyork.org> <76960946-F768-422B-A76A-17D951D29C8C@vpnc.org>
To: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1257)
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQl4Ofsr9Has2jCwt1S+DHL9qz5/tq9OOsTcWfrX6+yroeF8gbZUJphmfZlrrZRJLt9EAgym
Cc: dane WG list <dane@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dane] Deployment focus? Re: IETF 85 - meet or not to meet?
X-BeenThere: dane@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Mon, 01 Oct 2012 15:07:26 -0000
Paul, > The IETF is not a protocol promotion body. We do it sometimes, but often with bad results. Good point... and I realize that my first idea listed is well off in the "promotion" area. Perhaps a better/safer area to discuss would be "are there technical issues or barriers that would prevent DANE from being deployed?" > That proposed agenda is much more in the realm of Internet Society work than IETF work. Perhaps you should talk to people at ISOC about hosting an meeting to discuss these things? :-) (smiling) I assume by the :-) that you know that these kind of deployment issues are precisely what I am employed by the Internet Society to work on via the Deploy360 Programme. So yes, my brain is kind of hard-wired into looking at "creating these standards is nice, but how do we get people to actually *use* them?" Certainly ISOC *could* hold a meeting to discuss how to get DANE more widely deployed ... and the people that would need to be at that meeting would be, well, probably pretty much many of the people who would be at the DANE working group meeting at IETF! Regards, Dan -- Dan York dyork@lodestar2.com http://www.danyork.me/ skype:danyork Phone: +1-802-735-1624 Twitter - http://twitter.com/danyork
- [dane] IETF 85 - meet or not to meet? Ondřej Surý
- Re: [dane] IETF 85 - meet or not to meet? Ondřej Surý
- Re: [dane] IETF 85 - meet or not to meet? Warren Kumari
- [dane] Deployment focus? Re: IETF 85 - meet or no… Dan York
- Re: [dane] Deployment focus? Re: IETF 85 - meet o… Paul Hoffman
- Re: [dane] Deployment focus? Re: IETF 85 - meet o… Dan York
- Re: [dane] Deployment focus? Re: IETF 85 - meet o… SM
- Re: [dane] Deployment focus? Re: IETF 85 - meet o… Paul Hoffman
- Re: [dane] Deployment focus? Re: IETF 85 - meet o… Dan York
- Re: [dane] Deployment focus? Re: IETF 85 - meet o… Warren Kumari
- Re: [dane] Deployment focus? Re: IETF 85 - meet o… Daniel Piggott
- Re: [dane] Deployment focus? Re: IETF 85 - meet o… Warren Kumari
- Re: [dane] IETF 85 - meet or not to meet? Warren Kumari
- Re: [dane] IETF 85 - meet or not to meet? Jim Schaad
- Re: [dane] IETF 85 - meet or not to meet? Warren Kumari
- Re: [dane] Deployment focus? Re: IETF 85 - meet o… Dan York