Re: [dane] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dane-openpgpkey-07.txt> (Using DANE to Associate OpenPGP public keys with email addresses) to Experimental RFC

[Warren Kumari <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 2:07 AM Paul Wouters <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On Mon, 8 Feb 2016, The IESG wrote:
>
> > The IESG has received a request from the DNS-based Authentication of
> > Named Entities WG (dane) to consider the following document:
> > - 'Using DANE to Associate OpenPGP public keys with email addresses'
> >  <draft-ietf-dane-openpgpkey-07.txt> as Experimental RFC
> >
> > The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
> > final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
> > [e-mail] mailing lists by 2016-02-22. Exceptionally, comments may
> be
> > sent to [e-mail] instead. In either case, please retain the
> > beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
>
>
<DANE chair hat>


> As an author, I followed the directions of the WG with respect to the
> lowercasing or not of the LHS. Consensus on the issue was very confusing
> and changed multiple times,


Good gods, yes. This was a contentious and confusing discussion, with many
people talking past each other, many religious views, and a number of
instances where the chairs procrastinated because we couldn't see a clear
consensus.


> and I do believe the chairs made a wrong
> call at some point for calling for the removal of the LHS lowercasing.
>

Entirely possible.
Determining consensus was tricky, and at least one of the chairs believed
that LHS lowercasing was the right thing to do - we may have swung too far
trying to avoid our biases.


>
> Without restarting the discussion here, I would like the IESG to take
> a close look at whether or not to recommend that the document be changed
> to do lowercasing of the LHS when possible.
>

Yes please!


>
> The implementation status section shows 3 implementations (2 written by
> me, the third one being gnupg) that use a lowercase call in the
> implementation.
>

I believe that many of us knew that this is what implementations would do,
but there was a strong contingent pointing at documents saying that this
was not allowed / violated chapter and verse.

We (the chairs) are more than fine being told that we got this wrong...

W
</chair hat>



> Paul
>
>