ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: [ietf-dkim] Considerations for Development of DKIM Policy Language

2006-06-16 07:07:39
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

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>