Ok, yeah, I am really off today. FWIW, in case it wasn't clear, I am in favor of re-using the TLSA RR type for S/MIME (finding it under a different name). That is, removing Section 5.1 from the WG document, which is mis-named anyway.
--Richard -- Richard Barnes Sent with Sparrow (http://www.sparrowmailapp.com/?sig) On Monday, September 24, 2012 at 6:51 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote: > I'm starting this as a new thread because Richard conflated two topics *and* > missed the fact that there is already a WG document. > > The question becomes what the registration of an RRtype "means". If it means > the bits on the wire of the *response* and their semantics, then I think the > S/MIME document can use the TLSA RRtype. If an RRtype also means the bits on > the wire of the request and response, we can't. > > Personally, I think that the RRtype is defined just by the bits in the > response, so we could reuse, but others might disagree. > > --Paul Hoffman > _______________________________________________ > dane mailing list > [email protected] (mailto:[email protected]) > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dane > >
_______________________________________________ dane mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dane
