Re: [stir] current draft charter

["Peterson, Jon" <[e-mail]>]

On 6/12/13 9:01 PM, "Dave Crocker" <[e-mail]> wrote:

>On 6/12/2013 3:01 PM, Peterson, Jon wrote:
>> But we don't even have to be asking ourselves about the relevance of
>> public ENUM to the proposed work here in STIR unless we want to try to
>> base everything on keying in the public DNS for telephone numbers. There
>> are other models for this that don't have the liabilities I described
>> above, anyway. Keying in private DNS is more viable, for example. I
>>think
>> a PKI is more viable.
>
>
>Other models?

I just meant for example private DNS, or PKI, as it says up there.

>Is there a written description of the integrated query service that you
>folks are considering, in terms of design, administration and operation?

I wasn't talking about some kind of integrated query service, I was
talking about where the keys should live. So, written descriptions would
be CP/CPS sorts of things, if that's what you mean here?

>It would help to also hear where such a design has already been
>successfully deployed.

Do you think that is an issue for CAs/PKIs? Certainly they have some rough
edges, which is why we see the DNS (through DANE) potentially playing a
role in their future. Or maybe it will be more like the SSL Observatory or
any of several other private cert verification initiatives going around. I
don't think I'm ready to give up entirely on the future of issuing certs -
yet anyway.

Jon Peterson
Neustar, Inc.

>As the Enum experience showed, schemes can be intelligent and appealing
>but not succeed.  So for any new deployment, any analysis needs to start
>with skepticism and work its way up with pragmatics.
>
>d/
>
>-- 
>Dave Crocker
>Brandenburg InternetWorking
>bbiw.net