Subject: [dane] Meeting plans for Buenos Aires?

From: "Mankin, Allison" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 14:45:45 +0000

I may have missed it, but what’s the plan for a DANE meeting at IETF95?

---

From: Olafur Gudmundsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 10:21:30 -0500

We have no plans to meet as we are trying to shut the WG down. 
Olafur

> On Jan 20, 2016, at 9:45 AM, Mankin, Allison <[email-masked]> wrote:
>

---

From: "Mankin, Allison" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 15:29:35 +0000

What is the future path for DANE-related efforts, if the WG is done?

From: Olafur Gudmundsson <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Date: Wednesday, January 20, 2016 at 10:21 AM
To: Allison Mankin <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Cc: "[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>" <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>, "[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>" <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Subject: Re: Meeting plans for Buenos Aires?

On Jan 20, 2016, at 9:45 AM, Mankin, Allison <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 08:49:59 -0900

> We have no plans to meet as we are trying to shut the WG down.

I am not at all a fan of extending working groups beyond their
natural lives (and in a few cases extending them to their
natural lives) but this surprises me quite a bit, as there's
quite a bit of useful work in the queue, particularly around
end user credential for various applications.  If dane isn't
going to stick around I think there's a fairly compelling case
for a maintenance and extension working group.  I think many
of these documents (and I can't believe I'm about to say this)
are more appropriate as working group products rather than
as individual contributions.

Melinda

---

From: Sean Leonard <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 12:32:05 -0800

> as individual contributions.

+1

I believe that there is more work to do around DANE (particularly non-TLS applications, i.e., e-mail, plus implementation interoperability), and there should be a place in the IETF for this work to be done.

Sean

---

From: Olafur Gudmundsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 13:32:10 -0500

> On Jan 20, 2016, at 12:49 PM, Melinda Shore <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

Melinda, 
I hear you but the question is do we need a general DANE group for that or if a new more 
focused group(s) take over ? 
The issue as Warren and I see is that the “energy” of the group has decreased a lot indicating to us there is limited 
interest in the work.  We are happy to see more energy in the group and to take on new work. 

Everyone, 

The chairs and AD want to see discussion on the future of the working group. 
Please bring to the table what you see the group can/should do. 
It  is up to the participants to set the direction for the group. 
If the group continues we will recharter to reflect the direction. 

To facilitate f2f discussion on this topic, the chairs have requested  a 1 hour slot in BA, BUT PLEASE start the conversation here. 

Olafur & Warren

---

From: Shumon Huque <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 14:18:51 -0500

On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 1:32 PM, Olafur Gudmundsson <[email-masked]> wrote:
> The issue as Warren and I see is that the “energy” of the group has
> decreased a lot indicating to us there is limited
> To facilitate f2f discussion on this topic, the chairs have requested  a 1
> hour slot in BA, BUT PLEASE start the conversation here.
>

Here's an overview of work that I'm aware of, that would benefit from a
continued working group:

* TLS Client Authentication with DANE TLSA records, which has generated
recent
discussion on this list. Viktor Dukhovni and I were planning to ask for
working group
adoption of that draft once we'd got it into decent shape (which is close).
But beyond
IETF participants, there are some active communities of folks that are
planning to
implement and deploy this protocol. Too often the IETF develops protocol
specifications that don't get deployed much, so if there is evidence of
real
interest in the work outside of the core IETF participants, that should be
given
additional weight.

* New application uses of the existing server TLSA spec. There is a
proposal
to do DANE authentication in SIP, which hasn't received much traction in
the IETF
to date. The author of that work has lamented to me that there is interest
in that
work in several sections of the SIP operator community, but he has been
unable
to generate any interest in doing that work in the IETF (specifically
SIPCORE).
I've suggested to him that he approach the DANE working group. There is
also
a proposal to do cross realm authentication in Kerberos with DANE. That
work
could happen in KITTEN, but if they don't have energy to take it on, again
DANE
could offer a venue.

* TLS extension for DANE/DNSSEC Authentication Chain. That is targeted for
adoption in the TLS working group once TLS1.3 work winds down there, but
the
substantive details of the spec are very largely about DNSSEC and DANE, so
having a DANE focussed venue where we can discuss the design and topic
generally is important.

* The SMIMEA and OPENPGPKEY specs seem to be on track for publication
as experimental RFCs. It would good to continue to have a venue to discuss
deployment experiences with them, and also to discuss plans to recharter
the
group to revise them as standards track docs in the future if we come to
that
point. Relatedly, there are two proposals to specify email address
local-part
canonicalization rules in the DNS. Those might end up being important for
the
success of SMIMEA and OPENPGPKEY and deserve a venue.

Lastly, new protocols take a long time to get deployed. Look at IPv6 - I'm
speaking from experience, having first deployed it in production in 2002.
And
it's still largely undeployed. Shutting down the DANE working group while
the protocol is still in its infancy, and while there is still potential
work in the
queue, sends the wrong message in my opinion.

-- 
Shumon Huque