In <E8476380-3FB9-4C9B-A59C-6EDA31CC1480(_at_)hxr(_dot_)us> Andrew Newton
There are a few benefits for not cloning TXT:
1) You can avoid the errors that may come with having to break the
record up into multiple character strings.
2) If it doesn't look like a TXT, there is less likelihood for
certain vendors to do the non-standard escaping that they currently
do with TXT (this can really mess up people doing cut-and-paste).
3) There is a possibility to define a less cumbersome master file
format for the record.
I'm not sure of those are really features, and not bugs.
I think that anything that looks or acts differently than the TXT
record is going to cause confusion. If you can't just copy the
DKIM record and change TXT to DKK, you are going to cause confusion.
If the output of a "host -t TXT snake._domainkey.yahoo.com" looks
different than "host -t DKK snake._domainkey.yahoo.com", you are going
to cause confusion.
I guess part of this is the question: Do people think that the TXT
usage in DKIM should go away soon? Or, will people need to publish
both TXT and DKK/DKP for a long time? If TXT is going to go away
soon, then the above are not serious bugs and could be features.
Oh, you missed the one big feature I can see with not using TXT:
Strict syntax checking can be done at the time the zone file is
loaded. Ok, I guess name servers could look to see that you are
defining something that is likely to be a DKIM record (in a _domainkey
subdomain) and issue warnings if the TXT record is not in the correct
format, but with DKK you could clearly reject invalid records.
ietf-dkim mailing list