Jim Fenton wrote:
| [FWS] within DNS records is just wrong.
It's the "folding" part that is the problem
here, and we should be using [WSP], right?
Right, that solves *one* of *three* potential
problems.
The second problem might be WSP, on the general
list we just discuss this wrt John's net-utf8
draft (Last Call). John argues that HTAB is
typically ambiguous and SHOULD be avoided.
If you buy that you get [SP] instead of [WSP],
but I think what you really want is either *SP
or *WSP, zero or more spaces, not only zero or
one. [FWS] without folding is *WSP, not [WSP].
If that's the case we hit the third potential
problem, record size. Allowing to "waste space"
(pun intended) is not what you want in a DNS
record. SPF allows 1*SP instead of limiting
itself to SP where a space is really needed to
separate terms.
But SSP introduces unnecessary [FWS], where it
is not required as separator, simplified:
| tag = "dkim" [FWS] "=" [FWS] ( "x" / "y" )
The "=" already separates name and value, you
could as well write:
| tag = "dkim=" ( "x" / "y" )
Conserving space might be irrelevant depending
on other issues, but the draft does not mention
UDP at all, unlike RFC 4408 3.1.4.
"Allow beautiful SSP records for human readers"
is a rather dubious design goal in RFC 5016.
Frank
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html