Oh, I'm totally not objecting to the lhs._smimecert.rhs syntax for this use case. That makes a lot of sense, not least because S/MIME isn't a transport-layer service.
I was just saying that in general, I don't really see a need for RR types other than TLSA -- especially because protocols can define their own mechanisms for finding TLSA records. -- Richard Barnes Sent with Sparrow (http://www.sparrowmailapp.com/?sig) On Monday, September 24, 2012 at 5:02 PM, Paul Wouters wrote: > On Mon, 24 Sep 2012, Richard Barnes wrote: > > > -- I don't really see why we need a new RR type here, beyond the cognitive > > dissonance caused by the three letters "TLS". > > What _port._protocol would one store the SMIME information under? > > If only we had decided not to use protoport prefixing.... > > Now we could say, store it _like_ the TLSA record at _smimecert. But > technically speaking, that is no longer a TLSA record, which > uses _port._protocol prefixing. > > We'll get more of these type of records, we might as well allocate > a new RR for this one too. > > Paul
_______________________________________________ dane mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dane
