[ietf-dkim] Re: Thoughts on the DNS RR issue
nobody at xyzzy.claranet.de
Sat Aug 27 01:40:31 PDT 2005
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
> _prefix.exists.example.com TXT "Policy1"
> *.example.com CNAME _wildcard.example.com
> _prefix._wildcard.example.com TXT "Policy2"
> This algorithm is 100% compatible with the deployed, legacy
> DNS and meets all use cases that were proposed for
If it works (I'm unfortuately a DNS ignorant, although the SPF
adventure helped to get some basic ideas) it's cute. Did I
get this right, the real trick is a convention to look for and
interpret an _wildcard.example.com alias if there's no direct
That should be an I-D of its own. As you said the SPF-solution
to support both SPF and TXT in parallel for years is not very
convincing (but still better than abusing TXT forever).
> If this mechanism was adopted as policy for ALL prefixed
> records there would no longer be any need to define new RRs
> unless there was a need to define a new record syntax.
Better stick to TXT with this convention. Snipping the rest
because it's beyond me. You probably need a IANA registry of
_prefix-es following your _wildcard convention. Bye, Frank
More information about the ietf-dkim