Greetings again. The idea of making the rules for the RFC 6761 registry simpler while keeping the registry intact have come up a few times in the past few years. To that end, I wrote draft-hoffman-rfc6761bis to capture some of the sentiment. It was preliminarily floated by the IESG by Paul Wouters, and he did not report any excessive screaming.
If you have read the draft, will be at IETF 115, and want to discuss it, I've grabbed a side-meeting room for half an hour on Wednesday morning; see <https://wiki.ietf.org/e/en/meeting/115/sidemeetings>. This will be a no-slides discussion where I want to hear if folks support the idea, if they think the 6761 rules are just fine, or if they want to see other specific changes instead. I'll rev the draft after the meeting and then try to figure out if it should be moved forward in the IETF. Note that I'm explicitly *not* proposing it for the DNSOP WG. Although this could be considered part of #6 in our charter, RFC 6761 didn't come out of the WG and we have a terrible time dealing with those issues when they come up. Instead, I'm thinking of this as a light-weight way to make the IESG's life easier with respect to this particular registry. --Paul Hoffman
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
