Re: [ietf-dkim] Montreal agenda, other than base

On Jun 16, 2006, at 2:39 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:

> So, for example, the DNS purists could well take exception to the  
> choice we have made for an initial TXT record, with a new RR  
> outside the critical path of -base.
It would be good to have a binary DNS RR defined within the base  
draft.  Depending upon how this record is used and what it contains,  
base64 encoding might exceed the 512 byte message limit, as  
previously explained in detail.  The savings from a binary encoded  
key should be compared against the space normally remaining.  This  
remaining space is affected by the domain name of the signing domain,  
the size of the 'g=' parameter, and whether other parameters become  
commonly included.   Such an effort could also benefit from expert  
DNS review and advise.
-Doug

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