Re: [apps-discuss] AppsDir review of draft-ietf-repute-model-08

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Colleagues, and Doug especially,

The message I sent (below) wasn't intended as a "shut up and go away"
message, but a genuine query.  I have grave doubts that TLS is the
right example (to begin with, I think fitting it into the REPUTE
approach, given the existing CA structure, would also be
controversial); but I'm genuinely trying to understand how to make the
document better, & not trying to tell anyone to go away.

Best,

A

On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 07:39:24PM -0400, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> Hi Doug!
> 
> On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 04:24:17PM -0700, Douglas Otis wrote:
> 
> > Use of DKIM offers a very poor authentication example
> 
> Thanks for the feedback.  I don't recall you having made this point on
> the repute mailing list.  Did you, & I missed it?
> 
> Do you have a better example, specifically excluding …
> 
> > StartTLS would represent a much better example.
> 
> …this, which strikes me as suffering from a different but related set
> of issues along the lines you're complaining about?
> 
> Alternatively, if we recast the description of DKIM to call it
> something else, but still used it as an example of what REPUTE is
> trying to do, would that solve your objection?
> 
> Best,
> 
> A
> 

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx




[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]