If you meet, I'd like to present draft-bhjl-x509-srv-00 but if you
don't meet, that's fine too.
I do not understand what exactly this draft offers over RFC 4387, which
already defines the HTTP certificate service, the URI formats, and the SRV
records. I get the vague sense that this draft is an alternative to storing
individual certificates in the DNS with DANE as draft-ietf-dane-smime-10
proposes. (See Section 5 of this draft.)
RFC 4387 is rather vague about how you locate the key server and what URIs
you use. This is basically a profile that nails down enough details that
clients and servers can interoperate.
That being said, it seems reasonable to present at the DANE meeting, so I
support that.
Thanks.
Regards,
John Levine, [email protected], Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail.
_______________________________________________
dane mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dane
