On Wed, 30 May 2007, Jim Fenton wrote:
What we had hoped to do in the next revision of the allman-ssp draft was to
unify it as much as possible with Phill Hallam-Baker's draft. I opened three
new issues on April 16 that I think need to be resolved in order to do that.
(1) Use of XPTR records for SSP. The idea here is to create a more
general policy mechanism that can be used by WS-* and such. There were
about 20 messages discussing this from 5 people. I'm not reading a
clear consensus on this.
This should not be handled as part of this WG but within dns group.
(2) SSP record type (TXT vs. something new). Only 4 messages in
discussion, mostly saying "if you support TXT, don't bother with
anything else." Again, no clear consensus.
If you need another opinion, do both TXT and custom record.
I guess that does not help your consensus searching though...
(3) Upward query vs. wildcard publication. 27 messages in discussion
from 15 people. Most of the discussion was a rehash of the idea of
associating semantics with DNS zone-cuts, which we had already discussed
and rejected. I have also been trying to get an opinion from DNSOP on
the idea of a one-level upward search (which I think solves 90% of the
problem), but haven't gotten any response.
Dont do it. The issue is that you can not properly tell where zone
delegation starts. I know resourceful programmers (including me)
keep track of this data and know that for example ".com" is one
delegation but ".uk" is not and there you have ".co.uk". But the
list is actually rather large and for several ccTLDs you have both
use ".com.??" and ".??" as proper delegation zones. So getting
around this is just way too tricky and if you don't what you end
up doing is sending multitude of extra queries to ccTLD name servers.
This is not proper operational approach as extra load would not be
spread but directed towards several single points on the net.
So I don't know what to write in a revision of the draft. I could just write
my opinions, but that's basically what's in the draft-allman-dkim-ssp-02 draft
already and doesn't make any progress toward unifying the different proposals.
I want to get something done soon, well before the July 2 deadline.
-Jim
_______________________________________________
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