Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP issues
2007-06-02 09:38:26
On Jun 2, 2007, at 1:04 AM, Hector Santos wrote:
Steve Atkins wrote:
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?
Steve,
I am bit of a lost of what is so complex here. It is the lack of
understanding of the DNS technical compatibility issues that exist
when it comes to handling of new RR records?
Until most, if not all, DNS servers, especially those with cached
DNS servers, support RFC 3597, "Handling of Unknown DNS Resource
Record (RR) Types", we will need a fallback on a TXT record concept.
see RFC 3597, http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3597.txt
It is really isn't all that difficult.
The bottom line is that there will be many systems with DNS servers
and domains that simply will not be able to work with a NEW RR and
seriously doubt DKIM is going to be the primary reason for most to
begin changing their setup or network in order to support the
"near" reliable propagation of NEW RR queries.
So if the spec states "SSP clients must query for new RR first, then
TXT" you wouldn't expect most receivers to comply with that?
There is really no choice here. To choose RR only, we are
strategically saying that we don't want older systems and all must
upgrade. That isn't a good strategy, never mind unrealistic. We
are talking about a huge population of DNS systems that simply do
not have the capability of handling a new RRs.
If we want to maximize adoption, a TXT record is required.
Cheers,
Steve
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
<Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread>
|
- Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP issues, Stephen Farrell
- Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP issues,
Steve Atkins <=
- Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP issues, Scott Kitterman
- Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP issues, Steve Atkins
- Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP issues, Scott Kitterman
- Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP issues, Steve Atkins
- Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP issues, John Levine
- Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP issues, Steve Atkins
- Re: [ietf-dkim] TXT wildcards SSP issues, John Levine
- Re: [ietf-dkim] TXT wildcards SSP issues, Steve Atkins
- Re: [ietf-dkim] TXT wildcards SSP issues, william(at)elan.net
- RE: [ietf-dkim] TXT wildcards SSP issues, Hallam-Baker, Phillip
|
|
|