On Sun, 15 Mar 2015, John R Levine wrote:
What's the logic behind not mentioning a possible known problem for
implementors of OPENPGPKEY?
Because we have no workable solutions for it.
I do not find that an acceptable reason to not mention a known problem
in the document. It is clearly something implementors need to be aware
of.
As I've said before, the reality that mail systems do fuzzy matching on
incoming addresses, but not in a way that is at all consistent, is a big
problem.
It is such a big problem that we should not even mention it in the document?
I don't think it makes sense to try to advance OPENPGPKEY or SMIMEA
or _mailbox until we and the people who know about mail figure out what to do
about it. I'm asking them to take a look.
This is a 20 year old problem. I see no reason why that 20 year old
problem needs to stop the advancements of the OPENPGPKEY or SMIMEA
RRtypes.
It would be great if these people would want to help with a replacement
text for Section 3.1.
Paul
_______________________________________________
dane mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dane
