Re: [Danish] [EXT] Re: Revised charter based on recent discussions

Charter looks much better now.
I support for the formation of the DANISH group, willing to contribute, review, and edit drafts.
Jacques

CLASSIFICATION:CONFIDENTIAL

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Danish <danish-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Russ Housley
> Sent: July 21, 2021 11:33 AM
> To: Wes Hardaker <wjhns1@hardakers.net>
> Cc: danish@ietf.org
> Subject: [EXT] Re: [Danish] Revised charter based on recent discussions
> 
> In the problem statement:
> 
> The text says: "...establishing trust in public keys from lower levels in a PKI
> tree."  This assumes a hierarchy, and some PKI implementations use a mesh.
> I suggest: "...establishing trust in certified public keys."
> 
> Editorial suggestion: replace "What DANE did not define is how services can
> authenticate connecting clients." with "However, DANE did not define
> authentication for TLS client identities."
> 
> 
> In the Scope of work:
> 
> Question: While TLS 1.3 is being rapidly deployed, there is still a lot of TLS
> 1.2 in use.  So, why limit to coordination with the TLS WG to one version of
> the protocol?
> 
> 
> in the Deliverables:
> 
> I think it is pretty clear what goes in two of the documents, but the previous
> sections do not really say what will land in the architecture document.
> 
> Russ
> 
> > On Jul 18, 2021, at 6:21 PM, Wes Hardaker <wjhns1@hardakers.net>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Folks,
> >
> > We are scheduled to have a BOF during IETF 111.  Since there has been
> > only a few messages indicating support for the creation of the WG and
> > the charter, we'll likely be having a charter discussion rather than
> > getting real work done on clearly identifying the architecture and
> > corresponding problem space (bullet 1 of the charter items).
> >
> > I've updated my copy of the charter in my github page [1], based on
> > recent wording concerns and submitted a PR #6 [2] to MCR's github
> > repository.  Reviews appreciated, and more importantly: concrete
> > changes you would like to make (OLD/NEW or PRs or ...).
> >
> > Finally, if you think this space is something the IETF should take on
> > we certainly need to hear more from people that believe this is an
> > important problem to be solved, and if so how you're willing to help.
> > (but even if you aren't committing to help, we at least need people
> > that want to participate in discussions to say so).  Silence, in the
> > IETF, does not achieve consensus :-/
> >
> > [1]
> > https://github.com/hardaker/danish-bof/tree/2021-07-18-charter-revisio
> > n [2] https://github.com/mcr/danish-bof/pull/6
> >
> > --
> > Wes Hardaker
> > USC/ISI
> 
> --
> Danish mailing list
> Danish@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/danish