On 6. 3. 2013, at 1:09, Viktor Dukhovni <[email protected]> wrote: > If there is still any opportunity to reconsider the issue, please > examine my suggested interpretation on its merit.
I don't think there is still the opportunity to reconsider this within existing DANE protocol. What we might do in the future: - define new types (like the one for bare SPKI) - obsolete old types But if we want to keep our sanity, we should keep to only one interpretation of existing types. No matter how hard you push and how many times you repeat your position (you already did too many times). Don't get me wrong, I am literally jumping from a joy that Postfix will have DANE support. That's what we are all waiting for, but there's one good thing the standards and their uniform interpretation is good for – the compatibility and interoperability. I cannot tell you how you should implement DANE in the Postfix and from pure technical viewpoint your implementation ignoring names in type 1 will make no big difference, but at least please document the implementation differences from DANE protocol properly in the Postfix documentation. Ondrej -- Ondřej Surý -- Chief Science Officer ------------------------------------------- CZ.NIC, z.s.p.o. -- Laboratoře CZ.NIC Americka 23, 120 00 Praha 2, Czech Republic mailto:[email protected] http://nic.cz/ tel:+420.222745110 fax:+420.222745112 -------------------------------------------
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ dane mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dane
