Douglas Otis wrote:
It would appear section 5.1 item 3 of SSP requirements excludes use of
wildcards.
3. SSP's publishing mechanism MUST be defined such that it does not
lead to multiple records of different protocols residing at the
same location.
A wildcard record of any type MUST appear at the _same_ location as
those of other protocols also making use of a wildcard resource record.
I didn't read this that way.
In lieu of a brand new RR number usage for SSP, i.e, TXT record lookup,
I took this to basically mean that an unique prefix for SSP is required
in order to avoid collisions with other protocol usages of a TXT record.
Mike's follow up to you suggest he was simply trying to avoid the
"SSP/SIDF Fiasco."
Well, I don't know what "FIASCO" he is referring too, but now it seems
that he meant avoiding multiple RR records responses period - whether it
was different protocols or not.
The only design issue I remember with SPF/SIDF and multiple TXT records
is that when the 512 buffer was exceeded and the server automatically
split the response blocks. The DNS client has to be ready for that.
Other than that, the v= tag help detect the proper TXT record.
Anyway, he is right that he needs to fix the semantics up. The only way
I can see avoiding this is by:
- The use of a specific RR number, and
- Avoiding long records.
or
- Using a unique prefix or infix tag,
- Including a protocol ident tag, i.e. v=SSP1, and
- Avoiding long records.
--
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