Re: [dane] How should draft-hoffman-dane-smime be written?

[Wes Hardaker <[e-mail]>]

Paul Wouters <[e-mail]> writes:

>> 2.  Copy structure of DANE-for-TLS RFC and point to it but don’t copy much
>> 3.  Say “we assume you read and understood DANE-for-TLS, and here
>> are the relevant differences”
>
> 3 preferred, 2 okay.

Ditto.  In some ways I worry about this becoming a repeating problem (I
think it will) and it would have made more sense to split the TLSA
document into logical pieces so you could say things like "go read this
and then apply these minor twiddles", and have the 'this' not be another
protocol-specific document like it is with TLSA.  So, you might think
that I'm thinking the right thing to do is 

  4. publish the TLSA document again in a multi-document, split-up
     fashion so it's more reusable.

But I don't think it's worth the work, so 3 is likely better.

-- 
Wes Hardaker                                     
My Pictures:  http://capturedonearth.com/
My Thoughts:  http://pontifications.hardakers.net/