Subject: [dane] Deferral of SMIME draft

From: Olafur Gudmundsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2015 14:41:05 -0400

Dear Colleagues  
The editors of draft-ietf-dane-smime have requested that draft be put on hold for at least a year to see how the OPENPGP “experiment” works out. The chairs have agreed with this request. 

Olafur & Warren

---

From: Paul Wouters <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2015 21:01:35 -0300

That's a little unfortunate because we're merging two prototypes millers into one. But we'll adapt the smime one based on the same prefix as openpgpkey

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jun 29, 2015, at 15:41, Olafur Gudmundsson <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> 
> Dear Colleagues  
> _______________________________________________
> dane mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dane

---

From: Christian Rößner <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 11:20:13 +0200

> Am 30.06.2015 um 02:01 schrieb Paul Wouters <[email-masked]>:
> 

I fully agree. I have spent many hours on developing a prototype for SMIMEA. This code should be merged with Paul’s code :-(

N.B.: I use this prototype already in production stage for testing and it works perfectly. So I really can not understand this decision.

Christian

---

From: "Wiley, Glen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 13:59:37 +0000

I am a big fan of PGP, however considering the current use of SMIME in
existing mail implementations I don¹t understand the rationale for the
deferral.

Since some of the more popular MUAs are able to digest SMIME already
doesn¹t it make sense to include SMIMEA in the DANE toolbox to leverage
that operational footprint?
-- 
Glen Wiley

Principal Engineer
Verisign, Inc.
(571) 230-7917

http://vbsdcon.com

A5E5 E373 3C75 5B3E 2E24
6A0F DC65 2354 9946 C63A

On 6/29/15, 2:41 PM, "Olafur Gudmundsson" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>
>Dear Colleagues  
>The editors of draft-ietf-dane-smime have requested that draft be put on
>hold for at least a year to see how the OPENPGP ³experiment² works out.
>The chairs have agreed with this request.
>
>Olafur & Warren 
>
>

---

From: Danny McPherson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 19:42:52 -0600

On 2015-06-29 12:41, Olafur Gudmundsson wrote:
> Dear Colleagues
> The editors of draft-ietf-dane-smime have requested that draft be put
> on hold for at least a year to see how the OPENPGP “experiment” works
> out. The chairs have agreed with this request.

Given the proliferation of S/MIME use in corporate environments this 
seems quite short-sighted to me as well (having responsibility for one 
such environment).

I was even more surprised to see this action in the WG milestones 
datatracker at effectively the same time this was posted to the mailing 
list:

2015-06-29 	Ólafur Guðmundsson 	Changed milestone "Advance DANE 
operational guidance/errata document to IESG", set due date to August 
2016 from September 2014

I'd have thought changes such as these were normally discussed among 
the WG before being effectuated and new contributors solicited when 
appropriate.

Furthermore, I see no defensible reason why an "OPENPGP "experiment"" 
would be blocking on this work - quite the contrary, actually.  Had 
there been an actual discussion on this 
already-a-year-overdue-WG-milestone I suspect a responsible action would 
have been to find some new editors.

As such, I hereby respectively request that the chairs reconsider this 
matter or present new facts in support of their decision.

Thanks in advance,

-danny

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 20:12:21 -0600

On 6/30/15 7:42 PM, Danny McPherson wrote:
> I'd have thought changes such as these were normally discussed among the
> WG before being effectuated and new contributors solicited when
> appropriate.
>

Another approach would be to progress the SMIME document now and update 
or obsolete it once the results of the OpenPGP experiment are known.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://andyet.com/

---

From: Paul Wouters <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 22:51:33 -0400 (EDT)

On Tue, 30 Jun 2015, Danny McPherson wrote:

> Furthermore, I see no defensible reason why an "OPENPGP "experiment"" would 
> be blocking on this work - quite the contrary, actually.  Had there been an 
> actual discussion on this already-a-year-overdue-WG-milestone I suspect a 
> responsible action would have been to find some new editors.

I actually also do not really understand the decision, other than the
authors seeing a hot potato. I still believe it would be in the interest
of both the OPENPGPKEY and the SMIMEA drafts that they continue to
discuss and attempt to use the same lookup mechanism.

iI suspect many software implementors that will implement one, will
also implement the other. Since it is mostly a different format for the
same idea, attempt to encrypt emails when a public key is advertised.

Paul

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 19:16:03 -0800

> same idea, attempt to encrypt emails when a public key is advertised.

Yes, to all of this.  I really don't understand the reasoning
behind this decision, mostly because the only explanation given
has been pretty perfunctory.  Surely a better option right now
would be to find additional editors.

Melinda

---

From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 20:23:10 -0700

> would be to find additional editors.

We have plenty of willing editors: what we need is WG interest in reviewing (not just in asking for us to finish regardless of the open issues). The open issue in draft-ietf-dane-smime heavily overlap with those in draft-ietf-dane-openpgpkey, but only a very small number of people have chimed in on the recent threads.

Without sufficient review, there is a good chance that the protocol will be heavily flawed.

Note that the current issues are not the only ones for draft-ietf-dane-smime. Eric Osterweil brought up many proposals earlier that died because no one even commented on them. WG consensus by silence is a good sign that not enough people care about getting the protocol right.

--Paul Hoffman