[cabfpub] Ballot 195 - CAA Fixup is in the DISCUSSION period (ends April 10)

philliph at comodo.com philliph at comodo.com
Mon Apr 10 20:50:58 UTC 2017

> On Apr 10, 2017, at 3:18 PM, Jacob Hoffman-Andrews <jsha at letsencrypt.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 11:20 AM, philliph--- via Public <public at cabforum.org <mailto:public at cabforum.org>> wrote:
> Discussion in the LAMPS WG indicated that the consensus was to replace the search algorithm completely with one that uses prefixes.
> I participated in the LAMPS WG via videoconference at IETF 98, and read the minutes <https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/98/minutes/minutes-98-lamps-00>, but I did not see any proposal to change CAA to use prefixed TXT records, much less consensus on it. Can you point to documentation about this? Probably also we should conduct further discussion on this topic via spasm at ietf.org <mailto:spasm at ietf.org>.

My take home was that there was no way we could expect to get a new RFC without discussing the option of replacement. One constant in IETF process being that it is almost always possible to have more talk.

The LAMPS charter is currently limited to a set number of items. So the discussion was of the form, should the WG take this on as new work when the issue of rechartering comes up.

The proposal to use prefixes was made at the mic in comments and it was pretty clear to me that was the way people were headed. 

I can’t see that we are likely to get a replacement RFC until after there has been official discussion on the topic at the very least. 

Now it is possible that there will be yet another proposal for a third search algorithm besides the prefix one. But that is where we are right now.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20170410/24c4042c/attachment-0003.html>

More information about the Public mailing list