Re: [dane] Question regarding RFC 8162

Hi Minar, I appreciate your response, and I hope these suggestions are going to be considered in the RFC. > I’m happy to hear you bring this up, since I also agree that we are missing > an important mechanism for clients to specifically search for a signature vs > encrypting cert record on

Re: [dane] Question regarding RFC 8162

?LinkId=550986> for Windows From: dane on behalf of Metin Savignano Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2022 10:37:04 AM To: Eric Osterweil Cc: dane@ietf.org Subject: Re: [dane] Question regarding RFC 8162 Hi Eric, hi everyone, I haven’t seen any reaction my last message yet. I had ho

Re: [dane] Question regarding RFC 8162

Hi Eric, hi everyone, I haven’t seen any reaction my last message yet. I had hoped to get some clarification. You wrote: > So, for use...@example.edu through > use...@example.edu , you would hit *.example.edu >

Re: [dane] Question regarding RFC 8162

Thank you very much for your quick reply! > I think it’s great that you’re looking this! To answer your specific > question, I understand that different people have differing levels of > interest in signing vs. encryption (vs. both) for email. I recall a number > of us had discussions about

Re: [dane] Question regarding RFC 8162

Hi Metin, Comments below: > On Sep 9, 2022, at 9:41 AM, Metin Savignano wrote: > > Hi, > > We’re a team working on an email encryption app. I am always a looking for > better ways to simplify the use of S/MIME, because I believe that the current > PKI is the main reason for people not to

Re: [dane] Question regarding RFC 8162

On Fri, Sep 09, 2022 at 03:41:39PM +0200, Metin Savignano wrote: > We’re a team working on an email encryption app. I am always a looking > for better ways to simplify the use of S/MIME, because I believe that > the current PKI is the main reason for people not to use S/MIME. I believe this