On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 03:39:27PM +0100, Petr Spacek wrote:
> On 18.3.2015 17:24, Warren Kumari wrote:
> > [ Random top post ]
> > So, it feels like we are approaching a compromise / consensus on this
> > bit (which is good, because this part was the bit we were least in
> > agreement on)
>
> Warren and list, I believe that the RDATA format is still underspecified which
> seems like a major problem to me: Please see
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dane/current/msg07390.html
Thanks for the reminder. I think we should at least explore the
question of what exactly does go into the RRDATA. What parts of
a PGP public key should publishers include or exclude? Will stating
a more precise definition improve interoperability?
Should the interchange form for such "out of band" PGP public keys
be defined in some other document. I've seen messages to the
effect that there's some interest in re-chartering the PGP working
group...
--
Viktor.
_______________________________________________
dane mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dane
