Re: [dane] Call for Adoption: draft-hoffman-dane-smime.

[Richard Barnes <[e-mail]>]

On Monday, September 24, 2012 at 4:27 PM, Miek Gieben wrote:
> [ Quoting <[e-mail] (mailto:[e-mail])> in "Re: [dane] Call for Adoption: draft..." ]
> > New RRs are not *that* cheap. Yes, servers and resolvers usually do let you
> > provision arbitrary RR types by number, but that's not nearly as nice as having
> > a real syntax, which takes time to develop and deploy. If you've got TLSA and
> > you just need people to look for it in a different place, why bother going to
> > the effort of making everyone support a new type?
> > 
> 
> 
> Fair enough. Looking back in the -00 there is even:
> 
> 2.2. Format of the Resource Record
> 
> [[ This will be the same as for TLSA because there is no reason for
> the two to diverge. Lots of text lifted from the TLSA document. ]]
> 
> Which would further proof your point about reusing TLSA. 
> 
> But what about other SSL-like protocols (if/when they are defined for DANE
> use). Should they also re-use TLSA or always use a prefix label? It would
> be nice to get some kind of constency, either they *all* use TLSA or they
> *all* use a prefix label.
> 
> 

There's a saying that goes, "We'll cross that bridge when we come to it." :)

Do you have an example of such a protocol?

--Richard