On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 01:25:02PM -0400, Shumon Huque wrote: > On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 12:48 PM, Benjamin Kaduk <bka...@akamai.com> wrote: > [...] > > > I concede that it remains useful to consider what the client will do > > with the received DANE records or denial thereof, so as to not unduly > > block off future routes for development. But it seems at least possible > > to take > > a very broad view in this space, including even the possibility of > > additional > > TLS extensions that can modify the behavior of this one (such as a > > modification > > to provide pinning-like behavior). > > > Maybe that's the best option. Advance the current document as-is. And also > develop a separate DANE pinning extension (now'ish ..)
Perhaps, but we should come to agreement on the actual goals before we get too far... -Ben _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
