Skip to main content

Adding Acronyms to Simplify Conversations about DNS-Based Authentication of Named Entities (DANE)
draft-ietf-dane-registry-acronyms-04

Yes

(Sean Turner)
(Stephen Farrell)

No Objection

(Adrian Farrel)
(Barry Leiba)
(Benoît Claise)
(Gonzalo Camarillo)
(Jari Arkko)
(Joel Jaeggli)
(Martin Stiemerling)

Abstain


Note: This ballot was opened for revision 03 and is now closed.

Richard Barnes Former IESG member
Yes
Yes (2014-02-19) Unknown
I am fine with changing this to Informational.
Sean Turner Former IESG member
Yes
Yes () Unknown

                            
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
Yes
Yes (for -03) Unknown

                            
Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Barry Leiba Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Benoît Claise Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Brian Haberman Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2014-02-18) Unknown
I agree with Pete's point that this should be an Informational document.
Gonzalo Camarillo Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Joel Jaeggli Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Martin Stiemerling Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Spencer Dawkins Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2014-02-20) Unknown
I would support either document class ("don't care").
Stewart Bryant Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2014-02-11 for -03) Unknown
Please expand DANE and TLSA on first use.
Ted Lemon Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2014-02-19) Unknown
In section 2.2, right after the caption for Table 1, the following text appears:

   Other options suggested for 0: PKIX-TA

It appears that this is what is actually in the table, so this text makes no sense.
Pete Resnick Former IESG member
(was Discuss) Abstain
Abstain (2014-02-20) Unknown
Stephen and I spent a couple of billion nanoseconds on this. That's enough of them.

I do think that this document should be Informational. Any normative information is buried in an IANA Considerations section that I suspect will not be read after publication. Nothing requires that this be standards track, and the odds that it will advance are zero. The fact that it "Updates" a standards track document or that it is "changing a registry defined by a standards track document" does not require it to be standards track.

But the world will continue to spin. The number of bits spent on this has perturbed the spinning quite enough.