ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP issues

2007-06-01 23:33:37

On Jun 1, 2007, at 7:30 PM, 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.

What would "compliance" entail prior to universal, or at least widespread, support for the new RR by all stub resolvers and recursive resolvers? Or would you wait for that widespread support before releasing the spec?

Cheers,
  Steve

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