IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dane] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dane-protocol-19.txt> (The DNS-Based

ned+ietf@mauve.mrochek.com Fri, 13 April 2012 07:27 UTC

Return-Path: <ned+ietf@mauve.mrochek.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6930321F844C for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Apr 2012 00:27:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dI7zXOOIPDaf for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Apr 2012 00:27:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com (mauve.mrochek.com [66.59.230.40]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D90EC21F8450 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Apr 2012 00:27:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dkim-sign.mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01OE9151YIC0007PVR@mauve.mrochek.com> for ietf@ietf.org; Fri, 13 Apr 2012 00:27:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01OE0NBOM18G00ZUIL@mauve.mrochek.com> (original mail from NED@mauve.mrochek.com) for ietf@ietf.org; Fri, 13 Apr 2012 00:27:06 -0700 (PDT)
From: ned+ietf@mauve.mrochek.com
Message-id: <01OE9150IMNI00ZUIL@mauve.mrochek.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 00:24:03 -0700
Subject: Re: [dane] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dane-protocol-19.txt> (The DNS-Based
In-reply-to: "Your message dated Fri, 13 Apr 2012 05:59:47 +0200 (MEST)" <201204130359.q3D3xlG0007556@fs4113.wdf.sap.corp>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN
References: <01OE8FJG30ZM00ZUIL@mauve.mrochek.com> <"ned+ietf@mauve.mrochek.com"@Apr> <201204130359.q3D3xlG0007556@fs4113.wdf.sap.corp>
To: Martin Rex <mrex@sap.com>
Cc: ned+ietf@mauve.mrochek.com, sm@resistor.net, ondrej.sury@nic.cz, ietf@ietf.org, dane@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 07:27:14 -0000

> ned+ietf@mauve.mrochek.com wrote:
> >
> >>>
> >>> In Section 1.2:
> >>>
> >>> "This document applies to both TLS [RFC5246]"
> >>>
> >>> Does this mean that DANE is not applicable for TLS 1.1?
> >>
> >> RFC4346 (TLS 1.1) has been obsoleted by RFC5246.  We cannot make references
> >> to obsoleted documents.  As a side note, we don't say "to both TLS 1.2", but
> >> just TLS.
> >
> > I have no involvement with DANE or the rest of this debate, but I wanted to
> > point out that this simply isn't true. IDNits warnings to the contrary
> > notwithstanding, references to obsoleted specifications are not only allowed,
> > but in some cases absolutely required.


> Since the question keeps coming up again and again and again...

> I firmly believe all three Obsoletion markers in the meta-data
> of rfc5246 to be factually incorrect, so I filed an errata for this.

> https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg08595.html

An entirely reasonable position to take IMO, but even if it weren't it doesn't
mean references to obsolete specifications aren't allowed.

				Ned

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email