At 6:20 PM -0700 6/15/06, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
> Section 3.1, paragraph 2: What do you mean by "constant recourse"?
The requirement to have a policy record for each protocol approved
by the DNSEXT working group.
Is that documented anywhere? I ask because we have a strong argument
against the need for it, namely that we have created our own
unambiguous namespace with the _domainkey label for the base protocol
and the _policy for the now-expired SSP protocol. If "_policy" is too
loaded, the label could be changed to "_dkim_policy".
Unless there is a good technical reason why we can't use our own
definition of structured TXT records in our own protected namespace
(and none have been offered), we shouldn't even start thinking about
using new RRtypes.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html