Re: [dane] Reusing TLSA

Ok, yeah, I am really off today. 

FWIW, in case it wasn't clear, I am in favor of re-using the TLSA RR type for S/MIME (finding it under a different name).   That is, removing Section 5.1 from the WG document, which is mis-named anyway.

--Richard

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

On Monday, September 24, 2012 at 6:51 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:

> I'm starting this as a new thread because Richard conflated two topics *and* missed the fact that there is already a WG document.
> 
> The question becomes what the registration of an RRtype "means". If it means the bits on the wire of the *response* and their semantics, then I think the S/MIME document can use the TLSA RRtype. If an RRtype also means the bits on the wire of the request and response, we can't.
> 
> Personally, I think that the RRtype is defined just by the bits in the response, so we could reuse, but others might disagree.
> 
> --Paul Hoffman
> _______________________________________________
> dane mailing list
> dane@ietf.org (mailto:dane@ietf.org)
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dane
> 
> 