On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 07:58:07PM -0400, Viktor Dukhovni wrote: > On Jul 31, 2019, at 7:05 PM, Benjamin Kaduk <ka...@mit.edu> wrote: > > > That seems likely; I don't feel a particular need to introduce skew between > > reality and the text of the specification. I guess, if the WG wants, we > > could recommend SRV-ID but still allow CN-ID (but this really is up to the > > WG and it is not part of a Discuss point given the 7672 precedent). > > I don't know which MTAs, if any, support "SRV-ID" for in peer MTA > certificates. DNS-ID (with possible fallback on CN-ID) is the only > option for both DANE and MTA-STS. I don't expect that the present > draft is the right vehicle for pushing for SRV-ID support between > MTAs.
Sigh, my flawed brain at work again. Thank you for keeping me honest, and sorry for the repeated brain-os. -Ben _______________________________________________ Uta mailing list Uta@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta
