Subject: RE: Border directories

From: Philip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 17:13:01 -0700

Bob said:

>3.  The much more significant point, unless I've overlooked a 
>"directoryCapabilities"  attribute in the S/MIME spec somewhere , is
that 
>both the originating and receiving application are completely clueless 
>as to where to find either the directory itself, or the http provider.

>Once I use mental telephathy to figure out the DSN name of the server 
>where the user chose to publish his certificates(s), then I can start
rummaging 
>around though either LDAP or HTTP, trying to guess the schema, and
which 
>index to use to locate that user's certificate.

>Those are the points we ought to be focussing on, IMHO.

Well this was actually my main point. I have been trying to persuade
folk 
to take the SRV record seriously and use it for this purpose for two
years...

So what is stopping the email client application vendors?

		Phill

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 21:59:56 -0800 (PST)

> Well this was actually my main point. I have been trying to persuade folk

> So what is stopping the email client application vendors?

The lack of any specification explaining how SRV could be used by email
clients might have something to do with it... And in the case of SMTP in
particular, the existance of a widely deployed viable alternative (MX records)
also plays a part.

The SRV record specification is quite clear: Actual use of SRV records for
specific protocols is beyond its scope. For that you need a SRV
profile/applicability statement.

If you see a useful application for SRV records in the email space (or any
other space for that matter) what's needed is a document describing that
usage, and I encourage you to write it out. This is what will persuade people
to use SRV records.

				Ned