On Mon, Mar 27, 2006 at 08:57:41AM -0600, Arvel Hathcock allegedly wrote:
My own view is that if DNS is a mandatory mechanism, if 'simple' and
On a tangent to the discussion about splitting the base document,
someone suggested that the new DNS RRs specifications be added to the
base. I believe this to be a bad idea for scheduling and dependency
reasons, perhaps in a surprising way.
First off, I believe we could actually get out a DNS RR before the
DKIM base if we work at it as it's relatively uncontroversial. And, if
we can do that, it will be very helpful in the deployment sphere.
Second off, a number of the DNS related mechanisms in the base, such
as the hierarchy search, sub-domaining, namespace use and TXT then DKK
lookup are likely to cause delays and controversy as base goes through
the final review processes. Keeping those issues separate from the RR
definition(s) will make the RR process easier.
Third off, at IETF65, I received verbal support from a number of the
folk in the DNS community that they will assist in the RR creation
process. Smoothing the wheels and showing us what obstacles to avoid,
if you will. They also helped review my chicken scratchings of a first
draft.
In summary, regardless of the merits or otherwise, of splitting the
base document, I would prefer that the base not-subsume the DKK RR and
presumably the Policy/Practice/Preference/Percolator RR or whatever it
will be called.
Mark.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html