On 7/19/15 11:49 AM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> My reading of the draft is that it is primary aimed at making DANE
> practical for HTTPS, where last-mile considerations on the client
> end are a significant part of the adoption barrier.
>
> For HTTP, MX and SRV records are out of scope. Clients th
On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 08:18:18PM +0200, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> On Wed 2015-07-01 05:58:20 +0200, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> > Instead, there would need to be in various cases:
> >
> > * A validated chain of CNAMEs (possibly synthesized via validated
> > DNAME RRs) leading from the
Thanks for this draft, i'm definitely interested in seeing it push
forward.
On Wed 2015-07-01 05:58:20 +0200, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> Instead, there would need to be in various cases:
>
> * A validated chain of CNAMEs (possibly synthesized via validated
> DNAME RRs) leading from the cli
