On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 10:37:50AM -0500, Warren Kumari wrote:
> 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
So long as server operators understand that PKIX-TA is not a TA,
and DANE-TA actually employs PKIX, and are not mislead into publishing
incorrect records, all is well. The names could equally well be
"Chico, Harpo, Groucho and Zeppo".
I also hope that future implementors will have read the standard
thoroughly and will have thought carefully about how to validate
each of the four usages and will not be misled by the acronyms'
false dichotomy.
This said, the names are reasonably memorable, so I guess we can
hope that their use will promote ease of discussion without creating
confusion. I am too steeped in the details now to know whether I
would have been confused initially.
--
Viktor.
_______________________________________________
dane mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dane
