Frank Ellermann wrote:
As explained in Dave's message: The "label" approach does not work
with *wildcards*, for that you'd need a separate record type and/or
a "tag" for the identification in the case of a shared record type
(TXT, SPF, whatever). But his reasoning was backwards, with a "tag"
for the identification of a desired record in a RR set it would also
work for wildcards until the size issue for shared RR types kills it.
See<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-iab-dns-choices#section-3.1>
for an "authoritative" (from my POV) statement about these issues.
Ok, I understand what you're saying. Then actually I agree with this
logic, and this WAS where I was pondering whether we should move to a
new RR type, but I don't know if it is sufficient justification. As I
was reminded, because other child labels would countermand an ADSP
wildcard, it's not clear to me that wildcards truly buy anything in this
case. Am I missing something?
Eliot
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html