On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 08:27:51PM +0100, Warren Kumari wrote:
> Oh yeah. I sent this all in a bit of a rush (while waiting for a cab).
> I'm also writing this in a bit of a rush, but I'm still going to have
> to chat with Olafur to try and figure out what we do with the whole
> "many trees" / DNAME issues.
I hope this is a reference to the _prefix issue. That is, whether
SMIMEA and OPENPGPKEY, ... should share the same _prefix:
<hash>._<shared-prefix>.example.com. <SMIMEA|OPENPGPKEY|...> ...
so that all DANE records related to a given mailbox are collocated
in DNS.
Perhaps this discussion should continue... Having one such prefix
is sufficient for separating such data from other data for the
domain.
Having many such prefixes, (at least one each for SMIMEA and
OPENPGPKEY) seems to me to be unnecessary and inelegant. That is
I think one such prefix is enough for both, and for any other
closely related DANE records.
--
Viktor.
_______________________________________________
dane mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dane
