If Dave's draft-crocker-dns-attrleaf-01.txt goes forward (that creates a
registry for _* names in DNS), DKIM of course should be registered in it.
I was working under the presumption that -base owns _domainkey,
DomainKeys not withstanding.
But there could also be an argument that DKIM has only laid claim to the
names that look like atoms. And if someone wants to lay claim to another
piece of the DNS namespace, such as _policy._domainkey, that too should
be registered in the _* DNS registry.
As long as we're happy that somebody in the future *could*, unlikely as
it is, grab an _foo._domainkey and *NOT* have anything to do with DKIM,
I'll back off on my previous suggestion.
Tony Hansen
tony(_at_)att(_dot_)com
Eric Allman wrote:
Sorry, let me try again.
Base doesn't talk about policy (any more), so the only thing it permits
in the _domainkey subdomain is a selector. Selectors cannot begin with
underscores, hence there is no possible conflict (at the base level).
There is a possible conflict if others start to put other stuff in that
subdomain. There are two cases here:
* They use names that do not begin with underscore. In that case they
are at risk of conflicting with selectors. I suppose we could add
something that says "don't use this namespace for anything else without
using an underscore", although that seems a bit obvious. However, it's
not what you originally suggested.
* They use names that begin with underscore. In this case there is no
possibility that they conflict with selectors. Then the question is
"does -base 'own' the _domainkey namespace?" If so, we should be
explicit, probably adding it as another registry for IANA to manage. If
not, then it isn't -base's place to say how others can use that subdomain.
I think we may be in violent agreement, since we are both forming these
messages in the form of questions. I don't know the answer, but it does
seem a bit weird to (for example) define a registry that starts out
empty (since we can't talk about _policy). It seems like it would make
more sense for the SSP document to discuss that.
eric
--On July 13, 2006 9:06:43 AM -0400 Tony Hansen <tony(_at_)att(_dot_)com>
wrote:
Eric Allman wrote:
In section 3.6.2.1, we could reserve the use of _* labels as used
in leaves off of _domainkey for extensions related to DKIM.
Since the only other thing that can be in _domainkey (in the
current draft at least) is selectors, and those can't have
underscores, is there a need to do this?
SSP (as it exists now) wants to use _policy._domainkey. That's not a
selector and would be under _domainkey. Does base need to reserve
space for it?
Tony Hansen
tony(_at_)att(_dot_)com
_______________________________________________
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