IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [lamps] WG Last Call for rfc6844bis

Sean Turner <sean@sn3rd.com> Mon, 15 October 2018 15:48 UTC

Return-Path: <sean@sn3rd.com>
X-Original-To: spasm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spasm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E25FA130DC1 for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Oct 2018 08:48:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 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, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=sn3rd.com
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 8DhLFmrp3Vqk for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Oct 2018 08:48:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk1-x72d.google.com (mail-qk1-x72d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::72d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C03F0130E50 for <spasm@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Oct 2018 08:48:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qk1-x72d.google.com with SMTP id a13-v6so12107650qkc.7 for <spasm@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Oct 2018 08:48:50 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sn3rd.com; s=google; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=BIszhwOsQYc5YwAMlgwDbCDA39FWEARB1YywmVg1p1Y=; b=HCdcAghuC80FJHovKGKypZ+uY3qjLGXi4FEuCbF6bBEhOWPYKOfC/mzLROiKzKOCPs lh3hax+JySeFQAC65SbLvC+F0gQtgbhw/y9GqfS0vvlt/Jsn5Oi7O//IgtvXJC65mtXH h7UTRevNaURmX1bunOevPdApWXA39fc7LxkBw=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=BIszhwOsQYc5YwAMlgwDbCDA39FWEARB1YywmVg1p1Y=; b=CWOmSEA58fpNThkZ/JzbmglllSg4MW9xsID9ew1HsqBv4yIzP0hWasE9d+bCUv1hZ2 9h+LYdo2il5zm/UCNwVXUdDJDXUE/fs28/i2YFvn2yeo6zi6a8fsd7MRaXm0hODbpi/W WBUpuHcPLMgcCaxFki/QDYH5raObtYKOJFKynHvf7HMpnhH1tJJ5DGXCRMO96YAxyIQV U8EcOM9Uak+G6hz/C2b4ivP67I6AKD9fJIUWmcZYgxQL5Cx2IW/w7U/5tLLs9SuImrk6 SziRd9fJxMaiwIk6+FmytPLVdcUna4UbiwMh2eC/sLnBdThz3xdVDSwMrKsnjDRNJNar 8f/g==
X-Gm-Message-State: ABuFfoj8a8a9jLQQPyPo5R7N7EVsCdfyala7IR3qD2Hogdoy6cNbcwlU S6sXY5q8ixyFVBSRAdSsgTtLXrU8B2Q=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACcGV61WKnFqLbw9TosRn5lbjWeWlAo7SPzRBB8RWi3bfJ9jt2AEaFX2HlhM6EZIeWfHLiv0SNICxw==
X-Received: by 2002:a37:5185:: with SMTP id f127-v6mr16802407qkb.44.1539618529799; Mon, 15 Oct 2018 08:48:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 192.168.1.115 (pool-108-18-182-101.washdc.east.verizon.net. [108.18.182.101]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id v57-v6sm7226818qtk.51.2018.10.15.08.48.48 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 15 Oct 2018 08:48:49 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
From: Sean Turner <sean@sn3rd.com>
In-Reply-To: <BN6PR14MB11063B4401B3C6BEBAF7A68D83E10@BN6PR14MB1106.namprd14.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 11:48:47 -0400
Cc: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>, SPASM <spasm@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <3C360C1C-E112-4044-BC2A-AF9BFFD3673C@sn3rd.com>
References: <F72DABEA-234C-4644-914A-81FBCC86D11B@vigilsec.com> <BN6PR14MB11063B4401B3C6BEBAF7A68D83E10@BN6PR14MB1106.namprd14.prod.outlook.com>
To: Tim Hollebeek <tim.hollebeek@digicert.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spasm/NfP0DaUTtOf2Bx27d2WhtEH1mk8>
Subject: Re: [lamps] WG Last Call for rfc6844bis
X-BeenThere: spasm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This is a venue for discussion of doing Some Pkix And SMime \(spasm\) work." <spasm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/spasm>, <mailto:spasm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/spasm/>
List-Post: <mailto:spasm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:spasm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spasm>, <mailto:spasm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 15:48:53 -0000

My thinking is that if the fixes to CAA are done we should not wait to publish those while we figure out what to do wither these “new” things.  I.e., ship this draft if it is ready and do the “new” things in a separate draft.

spt

> On Oct 11, 2018, at 15:25, Tim Hollebeek <tim.hollebeek@digicert.com> wrote:
> 
> LAMPS chair hat off; CABF Validation Subcommittee (formerly, Validation
> Working Group) hat on.
> 
> Recently at the CA/Browser Forum, allowing customers to use CAA  to limit
> the validation methods that can be used for a domain has been identified
> as one of the Forum's highest priorities.  I started a thread on the idea
> back
> in December:
> 
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spasm/Jse-FslACq3wair2B2_YSwpViNs
> 
> While CAs can potentially unilaterally implement this on their own outside 
> the Forum with parameters (as in the acme-caa draft), uniformity throughout 
> the industry would be desirable.  The Forum also has the ability to mandate 
> implementation by a specific date.
> 
> This was discussed on this morning's Validation Subcommittee call, and it
> was suggested we ask the group if there is interest in including this in RFC
> 
> 6844-bis, or whether it would be preferable to handle it as a separate
> draft.
> 
> -Tim
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Spasm <spasm-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Russ Housley
>> Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2018 2:01 PM
>> To: SPASM <spasm@ietf.org>
>> Subject: [lamps] WG Last Call for rfc6844bis
>> 
>> This is the LAMPS WG Last Call for "DNS Certification Authority
> Authorization
>> (CAA) Resource Record" <draft-ietf-lamps-rfc6844bis-01>.
>> 
>> Please review the document and send your comments to the list by 22
>> October 2018.
>> 
>> If no concerns are raised, the document will be forwarded to the IESG with
> a
>> request for publication as Proposed Standard.
>> 
>> Russ & Tim
>> _______________________________________________
>> Spasm mailing list
>> Spasm@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spasm
> _______________________________________________
> Spasm mailing list
> Spasm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spasm

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email