> On Oct 21, 2017, at 7:22 PM, Jim Fenton <fen...@bluepopcorn.net> wrote:
>
> One situation I can think of that might still require SNI is if two providers
> merged and combined their infrastructure. Example.com and example.net might
> each have 1000s of customers and it might not be practical for them to get
> the customers’ MX records updated in a timely fashion, so the same IP might
> need to handle requests for both domains for some period of time.
Yes, that's somewhat plausible, but on the the other hand one might
expect the providers to have sufficiently many IPs to not require
immediate consolidation onto a single pool of MX IP addresses. They
can then migrate customers onto a common platform over time.
Or alternatively, they can deploy a certificate with multiple DNS-ID
subjectAltNames that matches both sets of names.
Thus, with SMTP there are workable alternatives to SNI. The question
is how much flexibility to include in STS.
--
Viktor.
_______________________________________________
Uta mailing list
Uta@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta
