On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 05:28:51PM +0000, Larsen, Todd wrote:
> >This is problematic because I expect that SMIMEA like TLSA generally yields
> >an RRset, not a single record. What would be the semantics of an RRset with
> >two RRs one with CU=4 and another with CU=2?
>
> CU=4 trumps CU=2. Other records present with CU=4 would clearly
> indicate a misconfiguration, but must be accounted.
>
> This complicates validation logic. It means checking for CU=4 in entire RRSET
> instead of declaring valid on first match.
>
> selector, matching type and associated data have no meaning for
> CU=4. The fields are present solely to maintain consistency with
> the SMIMEA format
This is IMHO an unreasonable distortion of the SMIMEA semantics.
Switching gears, was any consensus reached on the endoing of the
query label? A truncated HMAC seems to offer better usability than
base32. I think that the specification is in good shape, modulo
the query label encoding.
--
Viktor.
_______________________________________________
dane mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dane
