> Hmm. Gotta say I don't agree as a commonly supported
format like this (should this garner support) helps
enable TlS server deployments switch between server
implementations, but if that's the call...
Maybe we should get a WG consensus. BUT ...
> The WG has not always but mostly recently stuck to adopting I-Ds
> that relate to the TLS wire format. SECDISPATCH or UTA or even DNSOP might
> be a better place for this work.
Can't see dnsop being relevant tbh.
DNSOP is where the original DNS record type is worked on ...
> I'm fine though with it being formalised however works.
Maybe this one's better just sent to the ISE? (I'll do
that during/after the meeting next week unless there's
feedback that something else is better.)
DNSOP is better than the ISE.
_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list
TLS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
