On May 10, 2013, at 10:37 AM, Olle E. Johansson <[email protected]> wrote:
> > 10 maj 2013 kl. 17:40 skrev Paul Hoffman <[email protected]>: > >> 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. > > Ok. > > Can the "_smimecert" tag be used for this as well or should this be exclusive > for S/MIME-Email? XMPP could also benefit from something very much like this, forTLS mutual auth, E2E, etc. From my reading, I think there are just enough semantic differences that _smimecert is probably not resuable for us, and I suspect the same is true for SIP. However, the syntax is going to be nearly identical, so maybe we can find some common ground to build on? - m&m Matt Miller < [email protected] > Cisco Systems, Inc.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ dane mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dane
