[ Quoting <[email protected]> in "Re: [dane] Call for Adoption: draft..." ] > New RRs are not *that* cheap. Yes, servers and resolvers usually do let you > provision arbitrary RR types by number, but that's not nearly as nice as > having > a real syntax, which takes time to develop and deploy. If you've got TLSA and > you just need people to look for it in a different place, why bother going to > the effort of making everyone support a new type?
Fair enough. Looking back in the -00 there is even:
2.2. Format of the Resource Record
[[ This will be the same as for TLSA because there is no reason for
the two to diverge. Lots of text lifted from the TLSA document. ]]
Which would further proof your point about reusing TLSA.
But what about other SSL-like protocols (if/when they are defined for DANE
use). Should they also re-use TLSA or always use a prefix label? It would
be nice to get some kind of constency, either they *all* use TLSA or they
*all* use a prefix label.
Regards,
--
Miek Gieben http://miek.nl
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ dane mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dane
