[dane] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-dane-smime-15: (with COMMENT)

Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> Thu, 16 March 2017 02:09 UTC

Return-Path: <ben@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: dane@ietf.org
Delivered-To: dane@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EDD6129C68; Wed, 15 Mar 2017 19:09:56 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
To: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-dane-smime@ietf.org, dane-chairs@ietf.org, ogud@ogud.com, dane@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.47.1
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <148963019657.14225.13317445344804850643.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 19:09:56 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dane/sz7t9VaguwbPry2WYsqnnkb2RLs>
Subject: [dane] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-dane-smime-15: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: dane@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Thu, 16 Mar 2017 02:09:56 -0000

Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dane-smime-15: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:


There's a rather icky IPR disclosure that basically says that licensing
terms won't be disclosed until they see where the draft is going. The
shepherd's review doesn't mention whether the working group discussed
that. Since this is experimental, it probably doesn't matter very much
right now. I hope that gets some discussion prior to any attempt to
promote this work to standards track.