Hi Jeff, On 27/04/16 00:33, =JeffH wrote: > On 4/11/16, 1:45 PM, "Stephen Farrell" <stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie> wrote: > > > > With no hats, I'd like to argue that the WG should pursue > > the "webby" STS proposal, ... > > just to ensure this thread is pedantically clear, when you said the > above, you were referring to.. > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-margolis-smtp-sts > (which has now morphed in to two separate I-Ds)
Well not particularly those drafts but yes I was referring to the ideas embodied therein. (But yeah, those are the drafts we have with those ideas in:-) > > ..and possibly also.. > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-uta-email-deep To the extent we want deep to be consistent with the above drafts, yes, the same discussion should be relevant. And in case it helps, I think we do need the webby approach in addition to the DNSSEC based approach because DNSSEC, while being the correct solution here, doesn't yet have sufficient deployment. I also hope that the webby approach will not further damage DNSSEC deployment in this case - I figure DANE/DNSSEC will have enough advantages over the webby approach that it'll continue to be used, and hence that at least some of the biggest mail providers will need to at least be able to verify DANE/DNSSEC stuff so the webby thing will I hope end up as a stopgap. Cheers, S. > > ..yes? > > thx, hth, > > =JeffH > > _______________________________________________ > Uta mailing list > Uta@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta >
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ Uta mailing list Uta@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta
