On Jun 16, 2006, at 3:49 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
At 2:58 PM -0700 6/16/06, Douglas Otis wrote:
It would be good to have a binary DNS RR defined within the base
draft.
Fully disagree. The current protocol (a TXT record that is only
used in namespaces that are specific to the DKIM protocol) is
sufficient.
If there were a namespace registry regarding these labels, there
would be less concern. It is ironic this names space is already
being shared by a separate application called DomainKeys and there
are already parameter conflicts. : (
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.
... which few (if any) agreed with.
The numbers were rather detailed. Did you find an error in the
assessment? Other than believing 2048 bit keys will not be used,
what would be the basis for disagreement?
-Doug
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html