On Oct 14, 2015, at 6:59 AM, Wiley, Glen <[email protected]> wrote:
> John, > > I read the draft. > > In the list of approaches you include literal, encoded, regex and pointer > but I didn¹t see a place to refer to hashes (such as SHA224). While there > are different views on the use of hashes for local parts, would it makes > sense to allow for the future use of a hash? Probably makes sense conceptually as a sub-part of “encoded” (Section 4). Some encodings are reversible (e.g., base32); others are one-way (e.g., CRC); yet others are one-way and also collision-resistant (e.g., SHA-224). The commonality that they share is that they preserve the byte-for-byte/case-sensitive matching of SMTP. Sean
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ dane mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dane
