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

[Richard Barnes <[e-mail]>]

Oh, I'm totally not objecting to the lhs._smimecert.rhs syntax for this use case.  That makes a lot of sense, not least because S/MIME isn't a transport-layer service.  

I was just saying that in general, I don't really see a need for RR types other than TLSA -- especially because protocols can define their own mechanisms for finding TLSA records. 

-- 
Richard Barnes
Sent with Sparrow (http://www.sparrowmailapp.com/?sig)


On Monday, September 24, 2012 at 5:02 PM, Paul Wouters wrote:

> On Mon, 24 Sep 2012, Richard Barnes wrote:
> 
> > -- I don't really see why we need a new RR type here, beyond the cognitive dissonance caused by the three letters "TLS".
> 
> What _port._protocol would one store the SMIME information under?
> 
> If only we had decided not to use protoport prefixing....
> 
> Now we could say, store it _like_ the TLSA record at _smimecert. But
> technically speaking, that is no longer a TLSA record, which
> uses _port._protocol prefixing.
> 
> We'll get more of these type of records, we might as well allocate
> a new RR for this one too.
> 
> Paul