Jim Fenton wrote:
Phill should probably be the one to comment directly on the reason for
the new XPTR record type, but I'm under the impression that he's trying
to avoid conflict with existing uses of PTR. I, at least, had not
considered use of NAPTR here; can you outline how it might work?
Sorry, no, that's why I said that I'm lost with DNS issues, and haven't
the time to learn more about it. The U/S-NAPTR records allow to locate
"services" somehow starting from a given name, and at the end you could
get an address record plus a protocol to use. For our purposes here we
would need a TXT record with the signing policy at the end. Or maybe
the address of a Web server hosting the signing policy, I can't tell...
[Phil's proposal]
that's a much larger question than this WG and undoubtedly a much
more time-consuming one as well.
<sigh /> Without knowing it you might have repeated a MARID argument.
I suspect I may have. Are you suggesting we take this on?
Really, I can't judge it. Whatever the folks here decide, please check
it with some "namedroppers" before we waste months revisiting ratholes.
Frank
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html