I believe it would be a mistake to publish this document without having it include a discussion of its relationship to RFC 4648. As far as I can tell, the CERT record defined in RFC 4648 solves roughly the same problem as OPENPGPKEY and CERT is already deployed with support in (for example) GnuPG. I believe the community would benefit from sorting out the relationship before publication, not after, when we would have two RFCs describing solutions for what appears to be the same problem. /Simon The IESG <iesg-secretary@xxxxxxxx> writes: > The IESG has received a request from the DNS-based Authentication of > Named Entities WG (dane) to consider the following document: > - 'Using DANE to Associate OpenPGP public keys with email addresses' > <draft-ietf-dane-openpgpkey-05.txt> as Proposed Standard > > The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits > final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the > ietf@xxxxxxxx mailing lists by 2015-09-11. Exceptionally, comments may be > sent to iesg@xxxxxxxx instead. In either case, please retain the > beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. > > Abstract > > > OpenPGP is a message format for email (and file) encryption that > lacks a standardized lookup mechanism to securely obtain OpenPGP > public keys. This document specifies a method for publishing and > locating OpenPGP public keys in DNS for a specific email address > using a new OPENPGPKEY DNS Resource Record. Security is provided via > DNSSEC. > > > > > The file can be obtained via > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dane-openpgpkey/ > > IESG discussion can be tracked via > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dane-openpgpkey/ballot/ > > > No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. > > >
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature