IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dane] AD review of draft-ietf-dane-smime-14

Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Fri, 17 February 2017 17:02 UTC

Return-Path: <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
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 8541D1294FB for <dane@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 09:02:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.301
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.301 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cs.tcd.ie
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 AN86KEHQIBbz for <dane@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 09:02:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5715E1293F9 for <dane@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 09:02:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10CA0BE77; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 17:02:24 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bRZ2-oJipNA7; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 17:02:23 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from [134.226.36.93] (bilbo.dsg.cs.tcd.ie [134.226.36.93]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8092BBE51; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 17:02:23 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cs.tcd.ie; s=mail; t=1487350943; bh=mA9Jx7np0PYbZlY6oULh8Qsjayq5KP9mKtwgQ9ZeEzI=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=tpqWlsd5WO86Goc8Ch/DVpIJhKkJm7cvAaKTRgOhBGMo4Tid4C9lwf0lS5eaHHvS+ Qxwe+7SfPTRsjxGcJ2vTFGbCMppBF7F6pcUQRmmgfTxtF/OihgOSSo/LMUQof5JQvy s2uCkl5EWuXM9rpNi6SmYY7lLJ7nGG+yMRigm1yU=
To: Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>, "dane@ietf.org" <dane@ietf.org>
References: <c6dc5069-da43-2e70-d5e6-d0e200fb8523@cs.tcd.ie> <20170209041739.17865.qmail@ary.lan> <22938E71-2963-4C6B-BE94-16C7E30FBFD0@sidn.nl> <CAHw9_i+kau8q6+rKg-ndKYixqhxZQNHCYA2BZmvwVbPR+fLEKg@mail.gmail.com> <CAHw9_iKgYZ1u9VJz2s4tfEka0bJXD5Er9vQiP9H1gtB4Vx=pWg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Openpgp: id=D66EA7906F0B897FB2E97D582F3C8736805F8DA2; url=
Message-ID: <0ed626d2-42dd-211e-8ea0-122555103a00@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2017 17:02:23 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAHw9_iKgYZ1u9VJz2s4tfEka0bJXD5Er9vQiP9H1gtB4Vx=pWg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="QahSUfhWjbF5lxJ7hJDvv5LEkPVH6mTJC"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dane/zn2lYXS05h6ctqxpCfy0PCdZdwE>
Subject: Re: [dane] AD review of 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: Fri, 17 Feb 2017 17:02:27 -0000

Hiya,

Thanks for checking. As I didn't see any objections, I've
asked for IETF LC to be started.

Cheers,
S.

On 13/02/17 17:32, Warren Kumari wrote:
> Dear WG.
> 
> Unless you explicitly let us know that you are NOT OK with the current
> IPR declaration ( https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2468/ ) by
> Thursday, we will be progressing the document.
> Personally I'm not thrilled with the situation, but I don't really
> think there is anything we can do about it...
> 
> On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 5:27 PM, Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 9:28 AM, Marc Groeneweg <Marc.Groeneweg@sidn.nl> wrote:
>>>>> the IPR declaration's statement that licensing information
>>>>> will be provided "later."
>>> As we had with the keyrelay draft in regext (and the draft of Peter Koch with DNSSEC transfers).
>>
>> Can you remind us what ended up happening with those two? I vaguely
>> remember some discussion about it being hard to get a commitment, and
>> that "later" seemed like a DoS on the process, but was there ever a
>> resolution?
>>
>> Is the WG OK with this, or do you feel that we need to try and get the
>> IPR statement updated? (Remembering that, AFAIK, we cannot do anything
>> other than ask nicely...)
>>
>> W
>>
>>
>>>
>>> <SNAP/>
>>>
>>>> I see that Verisign has offered a free-unless-you-sue-us license for
>>>> other patent applications, like this one, dunno why they do for some
>>>> but not others:
>>>>
>>>>    https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2703/
>>> Other than that the suggested draft is also by Verisign themselves?
>>>
>>>> In any event, you alrady know what my suggested solution is.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Marc
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> dane mailing list
>>> dane@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dane
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad
>> idea in the first place.
>> This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
>> regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair
>> of pants.
>>    ---maf
> 
> 
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email