--On Friday, September 11, 2015 16:11 -0400 Scott Kitterman <scott@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Friday, September 11, 2015 03:34:26 PM John C Klensin wrote: > ... >> * And, while it is separate from the above, describe >> the experiment to be performed, how it will be >> evaluated, and any issues that might arise in >> performing the experiment in a "live" Internet >> environment (including any measures needed to back >> away from it if it is not successful). > ... > > To pull out this one point... > > I tried to discuss this in the WG, but didn't get very far > [1]. I agree the experiment in the experimental draft is > underspecified. > > Scott K > > [1] > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dane/4gMgt2MiYLWYTmP-mOg > cxuOqqxg While I continue to believe that there are substantive issues with this proposal and that the document would need work even if those substantive issues were dismissed or overcome, it seems to me that there may also be a procedural one in that there have been several claims about attempts to raise issues in the WG that, to quote the above, "didn't get very far". I just looked at the shepherd's report (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dane-openpgpkey/shepherdwriteup/). It, interestingly, still indicates that the WG wants Proposed Standard, and that "The working group consensus is strong about advancing this document.". It does not mention what one can infer from the IETF was lively, and still unresolved, discussion about a number of issues, including requested status. It also indicates that this particular hashing mechanism was adopted because the email community was asked for reviews and that more review from them would be welcome. I don't know what was tried; I do know that some of the comments to the effect of "tried and didn't get very far" came from people who are considered members of the "email community" and that there were no requests for specific comments addressed to, e.g., the standing SMTP mailing list. The shepherd's report also asks for 'More review from email community will not hurt, but unless they have an sudden insight as how to "cannonize" email address this is the best we can do'. As has been noted in several comments during Last Call, canonicalization of email addresses (much less efforts to 'cannonize' them) is prohibited by RFC 5321 (and 821 and 2821), so this is not going to be a matter of insight, at least until or unless the IETF produces a standards-track protocol that updates and replaces those SMTP provisions with specific required local-part formats and rules. The comments in the shepherd's report imply that the WG was not aware of those restrictions. Independent of the substance of the matter, that is a serious procedural problem. If people tried to raise it in the WG and were ignored or dismissed (even in the shepherd's report) that is even more serious. I believe that, even if there were no other problems, those procedural issues should cause the IESG to return the document to the WG, request the document more consistently reflect its proposed status, and get a shepherd's report that more comprehensively reflects issues that have been raised (either in the WG or in LC) and how they were resolved, rather than claiming "strong consensus" about issues that apparently remain controversial or expecting the community to come up with a canonicalization approach without commenting on the relationship of such an approach to SMTP requirements. john