So is using the DNS in fact necessary? If it is, we may need text
that explicitly says why at some stage.
I think we're all presuming that if a receipient uses SSP, it'll be
doing a query per message to fetch the SSP info for that message. If
we expect the query to be small enough that the query and response
will each fit into 512 bytes, DNS is the natural way to handle it
because it's widely available, has good caches, etc., and is really
fast. If the info is big enough that it'll need a TCP session, then
HTTP makes sense, since it's also widely available, has good caches,
etc., and is about as fast as can be given that it needs a TCP
session.
I'm hoping that we can constrain the SSP info to a modest number of
bits, so DNS is is. If SSP bloats up to the point where it doesn't
fit in 512, then it's http.
R's,
John
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html