In article <[email protected]> you write: >> >> On Jan 12, 2016, at 9:32 PM, John R Levine <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> They've appeared under transport names for the past 15 years, which means >> that people have expectations >about how they're used which I would not casually ignore. > >And yet client identities are not really transport-specific.
Hi, Viktor. As I said in the message to which you just responded, two paragraphs below the one you quoted: It has very little to do with distinct transport protocols, and everything to do with avoiding name collisions. Nobody runs POP or IMAP over UDP, but the SRV names are still _pop3._tcp and _imap._tcp. >> There are a lot of other prefixed names floating around the DNS. If someone >> attempted to use a client >name like _spf or _sip or _domainkey or _dmarc or _adsp or _vouch they and >their users would experience >an eternity of pain from name collisions. > >Only if there are TLSA records for those names. Well, OK. How much do you want to bet that there won't be, ever, for those names and for anything else for which someone uses a prefixed name? We can easily avoid this problem now, or painfully sort of work around it in the future. I don't see that as a hard choice. R's, John _______________________________________________ dane mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dane
