On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 9:10 PM, Kim Alvefur <[email protected]> wrote: > On 01/12/2016 11:21 PM, Shumon Huque wrote: > > On the "_smtp-client" label choice, > > That seems like it will cause confusion considering _xmpp-client is used > in the XMPP world to refer to where the end-users connect their user > agents to, so basically equivalent to _submission in email. And then > there's _xmpp-server for communication between servers. >
Yeah, I'm aware of that. I think the XMPP community made an unfortunate choice in those names - I might have suggested "_xmpp-c2s" and "_xmpp-s2s" instead. As John Levine points out, the client service name choices are already all over the map in the current IANA service registry, so ... FWIW, I would suggest _smtp-out as a less confusing label. > The _smtp-client record was just an example we used in the draft. We weren't trying to impose a uniform convention for IANA client application labels here (probably not the right place to do so), but perhaps we can consider making a recommendation in the IANA Considerations section of the draft. The word "client" is a bit ambiguous whether it refers to a user agent > or a server in the process of connecting to another server. It would > help to be more explicit about which one of these are being referred to, > or if it applies to both. > In my opinion, it covers any entity acting as a client, so it covers both the cases you outline. I'm not sure we need to make a distinction in the draft. Client-DANE in the later context, enabling mutual authentication between > SMTP servers could be a nice improvement / complement to SPF & co. > Glad to hear it. That's one of the use cases that this draft had in mind. -- Shumon Huque
_______________________________________________ dane mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dane
