Re: [dane] Calling the naming issue...

Viktor Dukhovni <> Tue, 10 December 2013 19:42 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C5841AE068 for <>; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 11:42:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ax9YAbtx6CoG for <>; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 11:42:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9892A1ADFF5 for <>; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 11:42:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: by (Postfix, from userid 1034) id 6BBDF2AB163; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 19:42:14 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 19:42:14 +0000
From: Viktor Dukhovni <>
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Subject: Re: [dane] Calling the naming issue...
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: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 19:42:22 -0000

On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 10:37:50AM -0500, Warren Kumari wrote:

> We understand that these names are not perfect and do not please
> everyone. Despite that, there is sufficient value in the document
> and we believe it will aid discussion and (hopefully) deployment.
> This will also allow us to move on and discuss things of more
> substance.
> If you are still concerned that this document might cause the
> sky to fall, mail the list, and our AD will review when doing the
> AD review. There is also IETF LC, so we have another chance to
> discuss this, this time in a more public setting? :-P

So long as server operators understand that PKIX-TA is not a TA,
and DANE-TA actually employs PKIX, and are not mislead into publishing
incorrect records, all is well.  The names could equally well be
"Chico, Harpo, Groucho and Zeppo".

I also hope that future implementors will have read the standard
thoroughly and will have thought carefully about how to validate
each of the four usages and will not be misled by the acronyms'
false dichotomy.

This said, the names are reasonably memorable, so I guess we can
hope that their use will promote ease of discussion without creating
confusion.  I am too steeped in the details now to know whether I
would have been confused initially.