ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP issues

2007-06-01 20:39:19
Arvel Hathcock wrote:
(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 a new RR can solve the wildcard issue and we feel that this is a significant issue worth solving (or at least addressing) then perhaps we should create a system that looks for a new RR first and failing that, falls back to TXT.

I don't think the "if you support TXT, don't bother with anything else" position is correct. If we come out with a spec that states "SSP clients must query for new RR first, then TXT" senders would be right to expect compliance. This frees senders to deploy the new RR when they need and are able to do so. Until then, TXT.

+1

--
Sincerely

Hector Santos, CTO
http://www.santronics.com
http://santronics.blogspot.com

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