At 1:02 PM -0400 8/9/06, Scott Kitterman wrote:
***************
*** 474,480 ****
expectation is "few".]
3. Discovery mechanism MUST NOT overload semantics of existing DNS
! resource records where name space collisions are possible.
5.2. Transport requirements
--- 479,485 ----
expectation is "few".]
3. Discovery mechanism MUST NOT overload semantics of existing DNS
! resource records where name space collisions are reasonably likely.
5.2. Transport requirements
***************
Making name space collision impossible (the written requirement) is a high
bar. Higher than was used for DKIM base. Reasonably likely seems like a
better standard. Impossible would seem to require a new RR.
Actually, that's not true. For -base, there was no chance that a host
name (as compared to a domain name) would collide with a name that
had the chosen label. I think saying "impossible" is reasonable if
you clarify the difference. It would be really nice not to revisit
the wars that erupted when the IDN WG picked a label prefix.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html