[dane] Publication request: draft-ietf-dane-smime-14
Olafur Gudmundsson <ogud@ogud.com> Mon, 06 February 2017 00:09 UTC
Return-Path: <ogud@ogud.com>
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 4B3B2129550 for <dane@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 5 Feb 2017 16:09:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.786
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.786 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-1.887, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZvWDkAOjew8g for <dane@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 5 Feb 2017 16:09:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp84.ord1c.emailsrvr.com (smtp84.ord1c.emailsrvr.com [108.166.43.84]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0B415126D73 for <dane@ietf.org>; Sun, 5 Feb 2017 16:09:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp3.relay.ord1c.emailsrvr.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp3.relay.ord1c.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id E5040A0167; Sun, 5 Feb 2017 19:09:00 -0500 (EST)
X-Auth-ID: ogud@ogud.com
Received: by smtp3.relay.ord1c.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: ogud-AT-ogud.com) with ESMTPSA id 824C4A013D; Sun, 5 Feb 2017 19:08:53 -0500 (EST)
X-Sender-Id: ogud@ogud.com
Received: from [10.20.30.43] (pool-71-191-33-181.washdc.fios.verizon.net [71.191.33.181]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384) by 0.0.0.0:587 (trex/5.7.12); Sun, 05 Feb 2017 19:09:00 -0500
From: Olafur Gudmundsson <ogud@ogud.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_8E00540C-2A79-4B74-B596-88D7FA3C9BDE"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\))
Message-Id: <592BF95B-36A1-4E1B-B746-AF880A2E4689@ogud.com>
Date: Sun, 05 Feb 2017 19:08:54 -0500
To: ietf-secretariat@ietf.org
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dane/vJFadq5F8SsM7y24ZNy6ph4cgxQ>
Cc: dane WG list <dane@ietf.org>
Subject: [dane] Publication request: draft-ietf-dane-smime-14
X-BeenThere: dane@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: <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: Mon, 06 Feb 2017 00:09:08 -0000
The draft passed WGLC, and all identified issues have been addressed. Writeup included below. Thanks Olafur As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012. (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? Experimental is requested, and indicated in the header. (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary: This document proposes a method to publish and "locate" S/MIME keys via DNS. The goal of this approach is to make it easier to find S/MIME keys for email addresses. The document reuses a "method" from RFC7929 to convert email-address into a special normal form. that is limited but is expected to cover many cases. The S/MIME DNS record specified has been allocated by an Expert Review. While the method inherited from RFC7929 has some detractors, this is an experimental document, and that should not block the publication. Working Group Summary: The main issues that the WG has discussed are a) is it a good idea to publish email addresses in DNSSEC signed zone? b) is the role of the normalization from strictly a normalization or an obfuscation as well? The consensus of the WG is that as the publication is by the zone owner it is an opt-in policy, there is no requirement for adoption thus the issue need to be addressed in the light of each organizations polices, i.e this is not a protocol issue. There is working group consensus to advance this document. Document Quality: This document is of high quality, and editors have been real good at making the document better. This document stands on the shoulders of RFC 7929 Personnel: Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director? Document Sheperd is Olafur Gudmundsson Responsible AD is : Stephen Farrell, (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. Document Shepherd has read every version of the document, and worked with the editors in addressing issues. A extensive working group last call was conducted, along with with a session at a DANE meeting where people from the email community had a frank discussion about the issues and scope of the document. This document has advanced as far as it can inside the WG and punishing as Experimental is the the desire of the WG. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? Not really. (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. Number of respected members of the email community have commented on the document. (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. There are are two issues that have been raised over and over again. A. Do not publish email addresses in the DNS. B. You are not guaranteed to find the key of the actual person you want to send signed/encrypted email to. Both of these issues have been refuted and as publication is optional A. does not really apply. For B. there conversion technique is has got extensive input and improved based on that. There is not much more we can do at this point to address it, and the document is basically a copy of RFC7929 (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why? Two IPR’s have been filed both for the same patent https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2468/ (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. Not sure as in my day job I’m not allowed to read patents. (9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? Strong enough (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.) No (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ <http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/> and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. None (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. Yes the document was reviewed by DNS RR type Registry experts. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Yes (14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion? No (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. No (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary. No (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226). Only IANA action requested is to update a reference upon publication of this document. (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. Done (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc. ID-nits None.
- [dane] Publication request: draft-ietf-dane-smime… Olafur Gudmundsson