On May 10, 2013, at 5:14 AM, Olle E. Johansson <[email protected]> wrote:
> This draft only talks about "Mail user agents" but as far as I see it it > applies to SIP user agents as well. Nope, it only applies to MUAs. > One difference is that in a SIP uri, the username part is optional: > > sip:[email protected] > sip:conference.example.com Yes, exactly. > Are both valid URI's. But that doesn't seem to make much of a difference. The > records would become: > > MNUHE2LT._smimecert.example.com > _smimecert.conference.example.com > > Would it make sense to incorporate SIP into this draft? I don't think so. It would be better to do that as a separate document with separate considerations for the SIP protocol. --Paul Hoffman _______________________________________________ dane mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dane
