IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dispatch] please dispatch draft-bhjl-x509-srv-02.xml

"John R Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Wed, 30 November 2016 01:50 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@taugh.com>
X-Original-To: dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB50B129D19 for <dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Nov 2016 17:50:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 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_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=iecc.com header.b=DCIJ094B; dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=6ivNkbLj
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 xGB1HtHS0HUd for <dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Nov 2016 17:50:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from miucha.iecc.com (abusenet-1-pt.tunnel.tserv4.nyc4.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f06:1126::2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BA54C129D1A for <dispatch@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Nov 2016 17:50:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 6679 invoked from network); 30 Nov 2016 01:50:44 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:user-agent; s=1a16.583e3074.k1611; bh=xF8QTO6DW8edOhxQkg3Aa6Wk8kt5xV1MkGthjXWt3NE=; b=DCIJ094BEJ5QMKpWgUtju0z0jmF8xy0exQZjKv4kNBfBbrdOeApS8LH6i1I7lZBuktbUzCmWnyqIp58ixDXvwqhYqR2E2C2vdFF+EPtwkseoSGLZg7RfB+Csios9dr/lgklB7E0X3KodYYjTE1ABb2SaF6bTaIIJO8Q75aUNeURjY5mRCovoGCmwRxn651OErfxmJB9V9iGIClNcgLEQdaAdh6s8lvFPbuHB744SoV6TDnSI3Zegr9c8u8n2iwzd
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:user-agent; s=1a16.583e3074.k1611; bh=xF8QTO6DW8edOhxQkg3Aa6Wk8kt5xV1MkGthjXWt3NE=; b=6ivNkbLjiYMKyUT11RmUpjUt4l9X/UTW6ZsGLZIaYBKMnKj6IvVkY9OwuBTzKP3RHAaV705myESZMPOqpcMzH1Cu0s69Fjenff/Y0HrSawaFFm1IzMGwxXShMQHDPwPVVcw7884zB7QbfSRQG/7jIFTPWmQa+div9r2Q+R72iBiFMEdFh+Z+J6pLewfBJHxhicwEUlB1Lq2WO4pHS30jDq/DpWWwtqUecOzzvEU/CwWchWTkfJvSJK+TSlcb4jGN
Received: from localhost ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTPS (TLS1.0/X.509/SHA1) via TCP6; 30 Nov 2016 01:50:44 -0000
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2016 20:50:39 -0500
Message-ID: <alpine.OSX.2.11.1611292047310.30577@ary.qy>
From: John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
In-Reply-To: <eda23b6d-6181-a66a-652f-2b75621b442f@cs.tcd.ie>
References: <alpine.OSX.2.11.1607221253020.13624@dhcp-b1bb.meeting.ietf.org> <eda23b6d-6181-a66a-652f-2b75621b442f@cs.tcd.ie>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.11 (OSX 23 2013-08-11)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dispatch/ghz70G_esKnfclaIPH9b6DajXOI>
Cc: Dispatch WG <dispatch@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dispatch] please dispatch draft-bhjl-x509-srv-02.xml
X-BeenThere: dispatch@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: DISPATCH Working Group Mail List <dispatch.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dispatch>, <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dispatch/>
List-Post: <mailto:dispatch@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch>, <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2016 01:50:57 -0000

> I think it'd be good if discussion of this draft considered
> possible relationships with [1,2] and e.g. whether or not
> they all ought aim for the same level of RFC if say one
> considered them all somehow part of what's really one
> experiment.

I don't see why.  The two DANE drafts are experimental because there are 
multiple serious technical risks in what they propose.

Brian and I wrote this draft to be as simple as we could make it, and to 
invent as little as we could.  While it's certainly possible that people 
will decide not to use it, if they do use it, there's no question that 
it'd work and it'd scale because it's built on top of SRV records and http 
which we know scale just fine.  So please leave it as proposed standard.

Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email