+1.
The allow list was added primarily recognizing it as a requirement
understanding it would be one of the design issues to work out.
Since the limitation would be part of the total query size anyway, one
consideration I had in mind was to suggest TCP stream lookups instead to
avoid any UPD truncate responses. But off hand, the worst case is 2
lookups, a UCP truncate followed up by switching to TCP. This is one
area I will punt to the DNS experts.
--
Hector Santos, Santronics Software, Inc.
http://www.santronics.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Delany" <MarkD+dkim(_at_)yahoo-inc(_dot_)com>
To: <ietf-dkim(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org>
Sent: Friday, July 28, 2006 11:32 AM
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] include
I'd venture to say that "include" ala SPF is specific NON-REQUIREMENT,
as it violates the requirement that the query operation provide a
deterministic
number of queries for discovery/fetching.
+1
I see very marginal benefit to that sort of indirection and a very
large cost in operational complexity and test cases.
Besides which, inheriting topology might be a common convenience that
justifies complexity in an IP based model, but inheriting policy seems
a much less likely and thus less compelling reason in a domain based
model.
Mark.
_______________________________________________
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