> On Jul 20, 2015, at 12:42 PM, Viktor Dukhovni <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 04:39:49PM +0000, Osterweil, Eric wrote: > >> Another point: the chances that a zone may already want to use "_at" >> for some other reasons (and thus causing a collision) are higher than the >> more descriptive "_openpgpkey," or "_smimecert" labels. > > There's no "collision". The records are disambiguated well enough > by the RRtype.
That would depend on how the administrator of the zone plans to use their own namespace. > Few enough domains are using "_at", to make this > a concern. I wonder how many is enough to warrant concern? Ahead of that, I’m taking some measurements to see what I can observe. Eric _______________________________________________ dane mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dane
