Dear DANE WG, We (the chairs) have met and discussed this issue with our AD (CCed).
We still see there being consensus for the document itself, and have seen a number of cases and discussions where more memorable names for the ordinals would have been useful (the at mic discussions in Berlin spring to mind). So, we are forging ahead with what is in the document (James’ suggestions — PKIX-TA, DANE-TA, PKIX-EE, DANE-EE) and will be forwarding this to our AD. We understand that these names are not perfect and do not please everyone. Despite that, there is sufficient value in the document and we believe it will aid discussion and (hopefully) deployment. This will also allow us to move on and discuss things of more substance. If you are still concerned that this document might cause the sky to fall, mail the list, and our AD will review when doing the AD review. There is also IETF LC, so we have another chance to discuss this, this time in a more public setting… :-P W -- It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problem just with potatoes. --Douglas Adams _______________________________________________ dane mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dane
