On Monday, September 24, 2012 at 4:27 PM, Miek Gieben wrote: > [ Quoting <[email protected] (mailto:[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. > >
There's a saying that goes, "We'll cross that bridge when we come to it." :) Do you have an example of such a protocol? --Richard
_______________________________________________ dane mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dane
