ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Issue 1382

2006-10-17 13:55:39
On Tuesday 17 October 2006 16:32, Stephen Farrell wrote:
Scott Kitterman wrote:
I'd be satisfied if the requirements draft were to say:

The protocol MUST NOT require use of a new DNS RR type.  The protocol MAY
allow for optional use of a new RR type.

But wouldn't that decide the issue in that the consequence of the above
would be that the protocol MUST mandate use of TXT (or some other
existing) records? Maybe I'm missing something though.

If so, I think that silence on this in the requirements draft is best,
but keeping the issue open in the tracker so we do have the debate later
on.

On Tuesday 17 October 2006 16:43, Michael Thomas wrote:
First off, I apologize for an almost word-for-word repeating of myself in a
previous post -- it's fairly obvious that my mail reading habit is fifo
based :)

My feeling is that deferring this argument until the design phase won't
likely hurt, while getting it wrong in requirements phase certainly
will. If we
can just be patient until then, I think there will be plenty of opportunity
to work this issue through. I personally agree that this is an important
issue, but I'm also very interested in real experience which will support
the various conjectures about how the discovery mechanism should work.

OK.  I'll sit down now.  Let's just keep the issue open for now and move on.

Scott K
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html