Non-subscriber posting.
-------- Original Message --------
From: Brian Wellington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: RJ Atkinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "David R. Conrad" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Keith Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: [idn] Unicode tagging]
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [idn] Unicode tagging
> Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 16:43:23 -0400
> From: RJ Atkinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Keith Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> References: <Your message of "Fri, 18 Aug 2000 14:06:44 EDT."
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> At 14:22 18/08/00, Keith Moore wrote:
> >> Not true. They live in MB records which need to support
> >> IDNs because the other half of an mailbox name is an IDN.
> >
> >who uses MB records anymore, anyway?
>
> Anyone using DNSSEC to distribute user keys via KEY
> records that are associated with MB records. In short,
> this is important for the Internet Security Architecture
> and for widespread deployment of IPsec.
(this message was just forwarded to me, so sorry if I missed something.)
KEY records are not associated with any other records. The way a KEY
record is classified as a user key is by setting the appropriate flags
in
the KEY record's "flags" field. I've never heard of any connection
between users' keys and MB records.
Brian
