On 15/04/2015 02:14, Brian Smith wrote:
Thanks for answering my questions. I still think that the X.509
certificate with SRV-ID approach seems too impractical to expect
widespread enough adoption to make it worthwhile to implement the
infrastructure for it. Consequently, I think saying that clients MUST
or even SHOULD implement the SRV-ID-based approach is too much.
I respectfully disagree in absence of any technical or legal explanation
of why SRV-ID would not work.
(I will reply to you with examples of how this can be already done with
existing toolkits - at least several of them require no new API. I am a
bit short on time at the moment).
_______________________________________________
Uta mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta
