On 5/11/2018 3:28 PM, Warren Kumari wrote:
I'm going to be rude and not answer any of the below questions --
instead, I'm going to mention "SMTP MTA Strict Transport Security
(MTA-STS) draft-ietf-uta-mta-sts" (which completed IETF LC, etc a while
back).
This document uses the label _mta_sts:
The MTA-STS TXT record is a TXT record with the name "_mta-sts" at
the Policy Domain. For the domain "example.com <http://example.com>",
this record would
be "_mta-sts.example.com <http://mta-sts.example.com>".
I'm mentioning it so that, when we have a registry, just
like _acme-challenge is mentioned in draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf/, we can
add it.
Warren,
As rudenesses go, that was entirely too constructive. Try harder.
While it doesn't have an RFC number yet, we are far enough from
publication for our document to make me think it will have a number by
then. As such, it merely needs to get added to the 'updates' set.
And as such, it means that you responded to the third question.
So yeah, try harder.
Oh, and thanks for the quick attention!
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
