<oembed><type>rich</type><version>1.0</version><author_name>npub17ty4mumkv43w8wtt0xsz2jypck0gvw0j8xrcg6tpea25z2nh7meqf4qgyd</author_name><author_url>https://nostr.ae/npub17ty4mumkv43w8wtt0xsz2jypck0gvw0j8xrcg6tpea25z2nh7meqf4qgyd</author_url><provider_name>njump</provider_name><provider_url>https://nostr.ae</provider_url><html>📅 Original date posted:2012-11-26&#xA;📝 Original message:&gt; Perhaps we should agree to talk about everything _except_ that first?&#xA;&#xA;Yeah, alternatives to X.509 chains don&#39;t interest me right now except&#xA;in the sense that they should be cleanly implementable with future&#xA;extensions.&#xA;&#xA;So if you care about DANE or DNSSEC or custom PKI infrastructures or&#xA;whatever, rather than proposing them as replacements here (DOA), just&#xA;figure out how you would extend the protocol in Gavins mail in a&#xA;future extension. If you can&#39;t see a clean way to do it then let&#39;s&#xA;discuss that. If you can think of a way to do it then let&#39;s table it.&#xA;Better replacements can come in later BIPs.</html></oembed>