Adding Acronyms to Simplify Conversations about DNS-Based Authentication of Named Entities (DANE)
Draft of message to be sent after approval:
From: The IESG <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: IETF-Announce <email@example.com> Cc: RFC Editor <firstname.lastname@example.org>, dane mailing list <email@example.com>, dane chair <firstname.lastname@example.org> Subject: Protocol Action: 'Adding acronyms to simplify DANE conversations' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-dane-registry-acronyms-04.txt) The IESG has approved the following document: - 'Adding acronyms to simplify DANE conversations' (draft-ietf-dane-registry-acronyms-04.txt) as Proposed Standard This document is the product of the DNS-based Authentication of Named Entities Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Stephen Farrell and Sean Turner. A URL of this Internet Draft is: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dane-registry-acronyms/
Technical Summary Experience has show that people get confused using the three numeric fields the TLSA record. This document specifies descriptive acronyms for the three numeric fields in the TLSA records. This document updates the format of the IANA registry created by RFC6698. Working Group Summary This document is a small update to RFC 6698, the specification for the DNS-Based Authentication of Named Entities (DANE) Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol, also known by its DNS RRset name, TLSA. The revision has one narrow purpose: to give the three numeric fields in the RRtype definition mnemonic names. This is meant to allow easier discussion of TLSA, particular for the "certificate usage" field that specifies what type of public key is in the TLSA record. Because this draft updates a standards track RFC, the draft is meant to be a proposed standard as well. The short document was thoroughly reviewed in the WG. That very active discussion among many people led to some very deep (but pointless:-) divisions in the WG about what the "certificate usage" fields should be called. The WG chairs called rough consensus, but a significant number of people in the WG disagreed that there was consensus at all. It should be noted that the WG has consensus that some terminology is better than just having the numbers in RFC 6698; however, there are strong opinions for three or four different sets of terminology. The shepherd does not believe that the wording in the current draft represents "rough consensus" but, at the same time, he doesn't see any of the other options as having noticeably more consensus. The responsible AD is ok with that, as are the chairs. There is consensus that impercted words are better than numbers. Document Quality There are DANE tools, not sure if this has been coded up in those. AD thinks he recalls one developer who said he'd add this but only after we stop futzing with different names. Personnel Paul Hoffman is the document shepherd; Stephen Farrell is the responsible AD. RFC Editor Note Please delete the text "Other options suggested for 0: PKIX-TA" from section 2.1 - its a bit of hanging text in the xml file that should be gone or commented out. The authors may do for you before auth-48.