On 11/16/2005 14:30, wayne wrote:
In <200511161423(_dot_)24892(_dot_)scott(_at_)kitterman(_dot_)com> Scott
Kitterman
<spf2(_at_)kitterman(_dot_)com> writes:
How about DKIM using Type 99 instead of waiting for it's own record type
to get established by the IANA? As I understand it there is no risk of
collision due to where DKIM puts it's records.
For the same reason that there is no risk to SPF collisions, there is
no risk for TXT collisions.
True. I don't see a major reason for them to go to a dedicated RR type. I
think that if it's required, it will be to appease the DNS purists. If
that's the case, then why invent yet another largely useless RR type? Let
them use our largely useless RR type.
DKIM records do not, at this time, have a magic number at the
beginning of their records. This would be needed in order to
distinguish between DKIM records and other uses of TXT/SPF.
Their equivalent of the magic number is the location at _domainkeys. I think
it performs an equivalent function.
Mind you, I'm still of the opinion that the SPF DNS RR type is useless
and we should never use anything other than TXT. I think the same
thing DKIM. (Unless, for some reason, the DKIM records get moved from
their _domainkeys subdomain, which would break a lot of DKIM stuff.)
As a validator author, I feel obligated to support it since it's in the spec.
I don't expect it to get a lot of traction either.
There's a social set of reasons too. There are more than a few people in the
IETF community that view this community and SPF with a less than positive
view. I think this is akin to being a good neighbor and offering to help
out. That may help moderate some of the negative feelings a bit.
From the IETF process perspective, there's no reason that the DKIM RFCs can't
update the SPF RFC to expand the use of the RR type, right?
Scott K
-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com