On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 03:17:17PM +0000, Wiley, Glen wrote:
> After reading your response it occurs to me that James was suggesting
> adding _at as a label rather than encoding it in the hash - makes
> more sense.
Specifically:
<some-local-part-encoding>._at.example.com. IN SMIMEA 3 0 0
<leaf-certificate>
<some-local-part-encoding>._at.example.com. IN OPENPGPKEY 3 0 0
<public-keyring>
are shorter than:
<some-local-part-encoding>._smimecert.example.com. IN SMIMEA 3 0 0
<leaf-certificate>
<some-local-part-encoding>._openpgpkey.example.com. IN OPENPGPKEY 3 0 0
<public-keyring>
> Having said that, I still question whether _at really helps much since
> humans aren't likely to read/write the encoded user name. Even if we
> decide to not hash the user name it will need to be encoded because of
> special characters.
The advantage is for the administrator managing the zone, not the
user querying it, and shorter labels reduce the pressure (if any)
on the combined length limit of 255 for the full qname.
I can't claim that this is a compelling rationale, but it makes
sense to me.
--
Viktor.
_______________________________________________
dane mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dane
