Paul,
I agree with the point you make, it was the point I was making: prefix
records are superior in every way to cutting new RRs. The use of PTR
indirection removes the wildcard objection and is a clearly necessary
regardless of whether you cut new RRs or not.
What I was responding to there was Jim asking me to clarify an
objection I was making to cutting new RRs.
Phill
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Paul Hoffman
Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 11:59 PM
To: ietf-dkim
Subject: RE: [ietf-dkim] Considerations for Development of
DKIM Policy Language
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
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html