On Fri, 14 Mar 2015, John Levine wrote:
My advice would be to remove all of the current text in 3.1 and replace it with a note that systems that publish records at names that are hashed mailboxes may publish CNAMEs for variant mailbox hashes that they consider to be equivalent. That's safe, since the party publishing the variants is the one that knows what they mean. It's also fairly hopeless once you get beyond folding stuff to lower case and stripping dots since the number of possibilities explodes.
That sounds fine. Are you saying you prefer the document to not list the example mappings we know about, or are you okay with still mentioning the example mappings?
PS: If we have name variant rules, which I'm not at all sure we should, they really should be the same for OPENPGPKEY and SMIMEA and anything else that uses a hashed mailbox. This suggests if we go down that road, the name management belongs in a separate document from the definition of the RR type, and it needs attention from the SMTP crowd.
Agreed. Paul _______________________________________________ dane mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dane
