On 6/30/10 8:30 AM, Scott Cantor wrote: >> I would really appreciate a "MUST not use DC-ID for server endpoint >> identification", which also happens to be the current practice and >> what had previously been specified. rfc-2818 doesn't mention DC= at all. > > +1 > > The last thing we need is *another* way to do what existing methods already > address.
That seems to be the consensus here, and I concur. IMHO we don't even necessarily need to say anything about why we're prohibiting DC=, given that we're working to document best current practices and there's not even a current practice (let alone a best one) to use DC=. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ certid mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/certid
