Meeting information

DANCE agenda:

Relevant documents:

How to DANCE:

Discussion and resolutions on the last call comments

Examples should be used (wildcard and DANE-TA)

Commenter: Rick van Rein

Transport label encoding may not be needed

Commenter: Michael Richardson

Are there privacy concern because of client identity harvesting in DANCE

Commenter: Robert Moskowitz

WHy is there an exception that allows for SHOULD when use X.509 certification

Commenter: Michael Richardson

Smallwer wording suggestions

Commenter: Michael Richardson

Checking regarding supported TLS version

Request for Calrity on ClientName limit/length definition

Use Stiffer Requirement to improve interoperability and reduce code complexity

Draft Should say what RR content it expects

Use case for mixed environments in terms of CAs

(18:05 COMMENT Discussion Ended)

IOT authentication and domain joining in LoRaWan in AfNIC


Closing Discussion about the future of DANCE

Do we have any future comments/works after the finalization of this
work. Should we propose more drafts and work? Are there participants
that are willing and have the energy to bring more work to DANCE?

Yaroslav: Identity provisioning should be studied by this working group.

Wes: There are many proposals with BoF related to identity management.

Jacques Latour: DANCE should be used for digital credentilas, may be
studied in the group.

Robert: Why DANCE is more focused and narrow scoped and should
discovered for TLSA. Wes: If you can send some documents to explain.

(18:32 Meeting Finished)