Re: [lamps] CAA tags

[Ryan Sleevi <[e-mail]>]

Thanks for clarifying. From your original e-mail, it wasn't clear if you
were taking a particular position on the property tags vs parameters,
and/or what considerations fed into such discussions. That's where having
the problem statement (or 'explainer', as its called in some SDO circles)
and use cases is useful to explore these tradeoffs :)

On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 9:50 AM, Tim Hollebeek <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> As I noted in the preface to my initial email in this thread [1], one
> other person has pointed out the same thing to me.  I noted that not only
> is this an option, but it solves two problems with the original proposal,
> so I’m personally leaning towards it.  We’ll see what other CAs think.
>
>
>
> That is, why is the set of policy not
>
>
>
> CAA issue 0 "example.com"
>
> CAA issue 0 "example.net"
>
> CAA validation 128 "type=EV method=1,2,3,4"
>
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 12:41 PM, Tim Hollebeek <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Note that it has been privately pointed out to me that one possible
> solution to the criticality problem and the scaling problem is to use
> top-level tags that are independent of the issue records:
>
> CAA 0 issue “a.example.com”
>
> CAA 0 issue “b.example.com”
>
> CAA 128 validation “Phone”
>
>