>>>>> "DB" == Doug Barton <do...@dougbarton.us> writes:
DB> IMO the "main" draft could use a little more clarity, including some DB> more examples, and personally I would incorporate the MX text in the DB> same draft. It's true that the MX and SRV cases are distinct, but DB> they're not _that_ different. Didn't Tony do that, in a later draft? DB> I'm having trouble understanding what the utility of TLSA records DB> would be in the absence of DNSSEC. IIRC, Tony's draft intended the non-dnssec recomendations also to skip tlsa records. As for tlsa w/o dnssec, that were some discussions early on here re- questing that dane support what we now call tlsa type 0 w/o dnssec, on the grounds that it still could be useful. My recollection is that the final consensus rejected that. But I don't have time to re-read things now, lest my dinner overcook. :) -JimC -- James Cloos <cl...@jhcloos.com> OpenPGP: 1024D/ED7DAEA6 _______________________________________________ dns-operations mailing list dns-operations@lists.dns-oarc.net https://lists.dns-oarc.net/mailman/listinfo/dns-operations dns-jobs mailing list https://lists.dns-oarc.net/mailman/listinfo/dns-jobs
