ietf-asrg
[Top] [All Lists]

[Asrg] Re: A Technique for Universal Authentication

2006-09-05 00:23:09
David Nicol wrote:
 
BATV could declare a syntax to include in TXT records

Yes.

SPF is too old by now to add features to

No, you can add "modifiers", stuff like batv=what.ever.syntax

New "mechanisms" as in batv:syntax.ever.what would require a
new version, in essence a new tag at the begin of the TXT, as
in v=spf1 vs. spf2.0/pra.
 
I believe (could be wrong) that it can co-exist in a TXT
record with other things

Yes, a separate TXT or SPF record with its own tag.  You'd be
limited by the q=txt (or q=spf) response, the complete set has
to fit, same idea as for q=mx and several MX records.

Reviving the old SES idea could be fully integrated into SPF,
it can use its exists: mechanism (for that the sender needs a
name server answering queries about wannabe SES/BATV local
parts, forged or valid).  The BATV senders can identify valid
local parts (otherwise they couldn't reject bounces to forged
Return-Paths), but sharing that knowledge via DNS SPF exists:
with arbitrary receivers might be difficult...  or interesting
for bad actors, how can they abuse this.

With mail it's probably a good idea to write all new protocols
directly for the main mail users, the spammers.  With the less
frequent legit cases as (desired) side effects.

there's some BCP that gets violated when you start mandating
parts of names.

Maybe draft-iab-dns-choices-03.txt, but that's not yet a BCP.

The SRV records have name conventions, and IDNA uses xn-- and
reserves similar prefixes.  I can't tell how mandatory that is,
maybe I'm still free to create a label xn--what-ever, or this
depends on the TLD.  An interesting question... :-)

Frank



_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg