On 20.10.2012, at 23:21, Tobias Heer <[email protected]> wrote: > Am 20.10.2012 17:04 schrieb "Miika Komu" <[email protected]>: > > > > Hi, > > > > > > On 10/20/2012 01:28 AM, Henderson, Thomas R wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> Since parsing and formatting code for both is pretty much ubiquitous > >>> and the packet space is dominated by the key itself, I see no real > >>> reason to change. That DNSKEY is supposed only to be used for DNSSEC > >>> is a distraction, we have our own RR and reusing the wire format is > >>> merely a convenience. > >> > >> > >> +1 > > > > > > fine by me as well. > > I agree. +1. >
I originally brought up the issue because I was not sure if 5201-bis was conflicting with the statement in RFC 4043. Now that things are clarified, it's fine by me. -- Dipl.-Inform. Rene Hummen, Ph.D. Student Chair of Communication and Distributed Systems RWTH Aachen University, Germany tel: +49 241 80 21429 web: http://www.comsys.rwth-aachen.de/team/rene-hummen/
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Hipsec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec
