10 maj 2013 kl. 19:41 skrev "Matt Miller (mamille2)" <[email protected]>:
> > On May 10, 2013, at 10:37 AM, Olle E. Johansson <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> 10 maj 2013 kl. 17:40 skrev Paul Hoffman <[email protected]>: >> >>> On May 10, 2013, at 5:14 AM, Olle E. Johansson <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> This draft only talks about "Mail user agents" but as far as I see it it >>>> applies to SIP user agents as well. >>> >>> Nope, it only applies to MUAs. >>> >>>> One difference is that in a SIP uri, the username part is optional: >>>> >>>> sip:[email protected] >>>> sip:conference.example.com >>> >>> Yes, exactly. >>> >>>> Are both valid URI's. But that doesn't seem to make much of a difference. >>>> The records would become: >>>> >>>> MNUHE2LT._smimecert.example.com >>>> _smimecert.conference.example.com >>>> >>>> Would it make sense to incorporate SIP into this draft? >>> >>> I don't think so. It would be better to do that as a separate document with >>> separate considerations for the SIP protocol. >> >> Ok. >> >> Can the "_smimecert" tag be used for this as well or should this be >> exclusive for S/MIME-Email? > > > XMPP could also benefit from something very much like this, forTLS mutual > auth, E2E, etc. From my reading, I think there are just enough semantic > differences that _smimecert is probably not resuable for us, and I suspect > the same is true for SIP. > > However, the syntax is going to be nearly identical, so maybe we can find > some common ground to build on? > Maybe the tag can be application agnostic, like _usernamesep There's no real need that the name is depending upon the application, as we have a record type that indicates the app. /O _______________________________________________ dane mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dane
