> On 24/01/18 21:45, Corey Bonnell via Public wrote: > > Given that the intent of the RFC is clear (such a CAA Resource Record > > Set is implicit permission to issue), we are proposing the following > > change to allow for CAA processing consistent with the intent of the RFC. > > I don't think the intent of the RFC on this point is particularly clear, but > I agree > that specified behaviour is better than unspecified.
I'd recommend reading my analysis that Corey referenced if you haven't already. If you still think the intent is unclear after reading it, I'd appreciate understanding why. -Tim
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Public mailing list [email protected] https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
