Dear colleagues, We did the first WGLC in July 9 [ https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dane/AjUjw-EXbSt3nlEqt-bvvIacDZM ]( https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dane/AjUjw-EXbSt3nlEqt-bvvIacDZM ) There was some discussion but the chairs did not receive enough feedback to judge consensus. Editors have updated the document to reflect feedback received during the first WGLC [ https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dane/lu5PGEBkgpvJA0kHG0u-Q_o7BDk ]( https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dane/lu5PGEBkgpvJA0kHG0u-Q_o7BDk )
[ https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dane-smime-12 ]( https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dane-smime-12 ) We have published a document that relates to the experimental use of PGP keys with DANE RFC7929 [ https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7929 ]( https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7929 ) [ https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dane/7hRc1QDlP-i__415-VylSXiwsLE ]( https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dane/7hRc1QDlP-i__415-VylSXiwsLE ) Many portions of this document are similar to RFC7929 - we realize that many people do not like the consensus in that document, but please do not re-open that discussion here. Just like RFC7929, this is an EXPERIMENTAL RFC. This is a second WGLC where the chairs ask the following question Do you support the publication of this document as an EXPERIMENTAL RFC? This WGLC will end on 28-11-2016 at 23:59 UTC The document is “equivalent” to RFC7929. Thus In the Chairs judgement: Only serious objections that do not apply to 7929. need to be raised to prevent advancement of this ID. Please state on the mailing list that you have reviewed the document and RFC7929 and given the criteria above the document is ready to be published. If you have concerns related to the descriptions in the ID please flag those as such. Olafur & Warren
_______________________________________________ dane mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dane
