On Jan 7, 2014, at 7:23 AM, Jelte Jansen <[email protected]> wrote:
> > One small thing on the draft itself: IMO the last part of section 2 should > not use 2119 terminology; it's not about interoperability nor implementation. > Oh and 'sent' should be 'send' :) > Second. Also some minor nits that may not have been covered: Section 3 second paragraph: Should the last sentence (if retrained) be moved to Sec. 4? It discusses key considerations and feels out of place here in in the RR description. Sec 4.3 first paragraph "This public key cannot be used..." Is that part of the OpenPGP spec (not familiar with it)? Otherwise, should it be "This public key SHOULD(MUST?) NOT be used if it would only contain the key uid "[email protected]"' Sec 4.4 spelling Resoruce/Resource. Also, "recommended" is in the last paragraph - should it be the RFC 2119 keyword RECOMMENDED? It is a solid thing to add in order to reduce problems with large RRsets. I think this can co-exist with the SMIMEA RR as well. Wish there was a nice way to know which to query for when trying to discover an email cert. :) Scott > Jelte > _______________________________________________ > dane mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dane _______________________________________________ dane mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dane
