On Wed, 25 Feb 2015, Warren Kumari wrote:
Is there rough consensus behind this proposal (for both OPENPGPKEY and SMIMEA)?
I think we were very close to rough consensus, but I'm not sure how many people actually read the suggestion. I know not everyone loved the idea, but I think it might be the best that we can do.... Viktor, would you mind writing up the proposal again (in a new thread) and we'll call consensus on this approach?
I think I explained this before, but I don't like anything that requires putting more than one entry into the DNS. The logic should be in the client behaviour. the SMTP protocol allows "Frank" to be a different email from "frank" so we cannot define these two to be the same at the protocol level. We can only provide guidance the clients trying to consume the new RRtypes. So I'm okay with defining client behaviour to try sha224(Frank) and then sha224(frank) and have a note in the security section explaining that in theory (even if not in practise) these two could be different people. Paul _______________________________________________ dane mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dane
