ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] Issue 1576: Revise wildcard discussion

2008-07-06 08:43:07
"ADSP records always start with 'dkim=', syntax:

There aren't enough bulldozers in the world to drain this swamp.

with the real problem:  "Depending on the size of all wildcard TXT
records combined the DNS reply won't fit into an UDP datagram, and
might not make it to the party interested in the ADSP TXT record."

No kidding.  The IETF has so far carefully avoided the disreputable
practice of inventing faux record types by subtyping TXT with a prefix
string.  (SPF and Sender-ID don't count, being experimental.)  It's an
awful idea for a variety of reasons, starting with the non-existence
of a prefix registry and most importantly that every newly defined
prefix would increase the chance of overflow, thereby breaking the
users of existing prefixes.

Were we to do this, we'd get the spec kicked back with advice telling
us that if we want a new RR type, define one.  And they'd be right.

It's a well known and well documented limitation of _prefix names that
they don't play well with DNS wildcards.  That's life, it's not going
to change.

R's,
John
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html