IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Wed, 30 November 2016 00:18 UTC

Return-Path: <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
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 1C221129CE7 for <dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Nov 2016 16:18:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.798
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.798 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=-1.497, SPF_PASS=-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 49qlBG1v9p5W for <dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Nov 2016 16:18:55 -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 23DE1129509 for <dispatch@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Nov 2016 16:18:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49A87BE6F; Wed, 30 Nov 2016 00:18:52 +0000 (GMT)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at scss.tcd.ie
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 P4YRdeYyM8Tf; Wed, 30 Nov 2016 00:18:51 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from [10.87.48.210] (95-45-153-252-dynamic.agg2.phb.bdt-fng.eircom.net [95.45.153.252]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 79249BE5B; Wed, 30 Nov 2016 00:18:50 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cs.tcd.ie; s=mail; t=1480465130; bh=wukza0lLApDnkxbm2SaTPDzBxNIXgoaWXzrL3JAjOKg=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=K3sQRXt2D+dyQMA43r0juqtiYtnzQOhnSAZYwCB1Ic/LmyCmZOSKIxfM/zB+i0htz 1LOMEuWq5Gkw/EwFGWtO1NAESPIo5kW1vJKT9/unpNdzwPV4faMDQ2RmCxoC5mEUBZ XbwRsmtUqnA2Gs0mfMHGnK9+Fvl/phi0wN8N5XLQ=
To: John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com>, Dispatch WG <dispatch@ietf.org>
References: <alpine.OSX.2.11.1607221253020.13624@dhcp-b1bb.meeting.ietf.org>
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Openpgp: id=D66EA7906F0B897FB2E97D582F3C8736805F8DA2; url=
Message-ID: <eda23b6d-6181-a66a-652f-2b75621b442f@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2016 00:18:50 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <alpine.OSX.2.11.1607221253020.13624@dhcp-b1bb.meeting.ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha-256"; boundary="------------ms030301040100020901070000"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dispatch/gz0f7jfHfFP3ceq0qTIaDkUqMQA>
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 00:18:57 -0000

Hi all,

There are two DANE WG documents (related to PGP [1] and
smime [2]) that do similar things to this draft. As John
I'm sure recalls, part of the extended discussion of those
drafts revolved around the intended status for them. In
the end we arrived at a (rough) consensus that [1,2] ought
aim to be experimental RFCs.

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.

Thanks,
S.

PS: I'm not expressing any opinion myself on this, other
than asking that these relationships be considered.

[1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7929
[2] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dane-smime-13

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email