ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP and o= values

2006-03-27 18:33:42
Mark Delany wrote:
On Sun, Mar 26, 2006 at 10:45:31PM -0500, Tony Hansen allegedly wrote:
  
As promised at the dkim meeting, I'm resending a suggestion about o=
that was sent in November and again in February.

At the Wednesday meeting, it was suggested that we replace the single
character o=? (etc.) tags with tags like o=WEAK (etc.). The thrust of
the messages was that we should use something that is even more meaningful.
    

One question Tony. Are you assuming that TXT will remain as the only
Policy/Practice retrieval mechanism? If a new RR is eventually
described, does that obviate the need to anglicize the current format?
Or does that depend on when "eventually" is?
  
Given that:

- There is only a small deployment of SSP records at this point
- There are good reasons for going to a new RR
- Unlike key records, there's no way to advertise whether to do a TXT or
"new RR" query for SSP

it seems like there are good reasons to accelerate the definition and
adoption a new RR for SSP.  In its most terse form, the "practices"
could mostly be defined as a number of independent, one-bit values.  In
any case, spending a lot of time on a definition that assumes TXT
records doesn't seem productive.

-Jim
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html