Frank Ellermann wrote:
Stephen Farrell wrote:
ssp-04 did revise the wildcard text, but not exactly as suggested
in the issue, nor am I clear about whether the new text satisfies
the couple of people (Eliot, Frank) who commented in the thread.
The version in ssp-04 IMO misses the following wildcard TXT points:
(1) There is no explicitly specified way to identify an ADSP record,
when it comes as one of several TXT records in a q=txt reply.
In the terminology of an IAB draft ADSP defines no TXT subtype.
The authors have chosen the DKIM style of using _adsp.domain, which
effectively provides for subtyping. Do you not believe that is
sufficient? I'll argue that the use of _adsp is actually better in that
you don't have to parse through a bunch of crap to get to the
appropriate record (normally). You still need the code checks, of course.
(2) Even if ADSP would do this a set of wildcard TXT records for
various purposes (compare RFCs 1464, 4406, 4408, and 3920bis)
might be too long for UDP.
And so I don't see how this holds, given the above.
(3) As a consequence of (1) ADSP likely doesn't work for wildcards.
As a consequence of (2) the WG apparently refused to fix (1).
A simple "MUST start with 'dkim='" (or similar) could fix it.
But to what end? In what circumstance would a wildcard that stops at an
existing label be at all useful? This is where I have been bashing my head.
Eliot
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html