On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 2:22 PM, Joseph Salowey <j...@salowey.net> wrote:
> We've had a lot of discussion on this thread that has pointed out that > there are enough issues with the current document that we should recommend > that the AD pull it back from the RFC editor. > > Concerns have been raised about the trade-offs associated with pinning and > I do not think we currently have consensus to add pinning. While I think > it may be possible to come to consensus on pinning I think it may take some > time. I believe we can quickly get consensus for the following approach: > > 1. Scope the document to the assertive use cases > 2. Explicitly allow (but do not require) DoE be included > 3. Remove current text about pinning > 4. Re-submit the document for publication and start work on a separate > extension that supports pinning > SGTM > > I understand that not everyone is happy with publishing the document > scoped down in this way, but there is a community of users who would find > it useful. I am soliciting suggestions for text for the 1-3 and I > encourage proponents of the more restrictive use case to get a draft > together that we can consider for adoption by the working group. > > I also want to thank the participants for keeping the discussion mostly > civil and having patience as we go through this process. > > Joe > > > On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 10:50 AM, Joseph Salowey <j...@salowey.net> wrote: > >> Hi Folks, >> >> Some objections were raised late during the review of >> the draft-ietf-tls-dnssec-chain-extension. The question before the >> working group is either to publish the document as is or to bring the >> document back into the working group to address the following issues: >> >> - Recommendation of adding denial of existence proofs in the chain >> provided by the extension >> - Adding signaling to require the use of this extension for a period of >> time (Pinning with TTL) >> >> This is a consensus call on how to progress this document. Please answer >> the following questions: >> >> 1) Do you support publication of the document as is, leaving these two >> issues to potentially be addressed in follow-up work? >> >> If the answer to 1) is no then please indicate if you think the working >> group should work on the document to include >> >> A) Recommendation of adding denial of existence proofs in the chain >> provided by the extension >> B) Adding signaling to require the use of this extension for a period of >> time (Pinning with TTL) >> C) Both >> >> This call will be open until April 18, 2018. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Joe >> >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > TLS mailing list > TLS@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls > >
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
