Re: [dane] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dane-smime-03.txt

[Viktor Dukhovni <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 05:28:51PM +0000, Larsen, Todd wrote:

> >This is problematic because I expect that SMIMEA like TLSA generally yields 
> >an RRset, not a single record. What would be the semantics of an RRset with 
> >two RRs one with CU=4 and another with CU=2?
> 
> CU=4 trumps CU=2. Other records present with CU=4 would clearly 
> indicate a misconfiguration, but must be accounted.
> 
> This complicates validation logic. It means checking for CU=4 in entire RRSET 
> instead of declaring valid on first match.
>
> selector, matching type and associated data have no meaning for
> CU=4. The fields are present solely to maintain consistency with
> the SMIMEA format

This is IMHO an unreasonable distortion of the SMIMEA semantics.

Switching gears, was any consensus reached on the endoing of the
query label?  A truncated HMAC seems to offer better usability than
base32.  I think that the specification is in good shape, modulo
the query label encoding.  

--
	Viktor.