John, Thanks for the clarification.
So are you opposed to DANE in general, or just the use of DANE for email? Given this opposition, are you opposed to the experimental RFC 7929? Or is your opposition limited to SMIMEA? Simson > On Nov 21, 2016, at 11:17 AM, John R Levine <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I didn’t mean to misrepresent what you said. I was simply trying to simplify >> the argument. I’m sorry if I got it wrong. How would you rephrase it? > > There's all sorts of reasons you wouldn't want your mail provider to read > your mail. As I said in an example, Gmail is mostly reliable but we don't > know what secret subpoenas they might get. > >> I am in agreement with you that the document assumes that domains are the >> authorities of the identities of their users. I concur that the document >> should explicitly state this. Email addresses have become an identifier that >> is in many ways superior to other identifiers, such as SSNs and Driver >> License #s, because they can be proved by an individual’s ability to receive >> email at a specific address. For the same reason, mobile telephone numbers >> are also quickly becoming persistent identifiers. Email addresses have an >> advantage over mobile telephone numbers in that there are more of them and >> they are easily changed as necessary. >> >> Would you support advancing the draft it is explicitly stated this >> assumption? > > No. It has other fatal flaws, discussed at length in the past. Better key > distribution is a fine idea, but this isn't the way to do it. > > Regards, > John Levine, [email protected], Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY > Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly _______________________________________________ dane mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dane
