[ietf-dkim] dkim-base: _domainkey vs _dkim

[Michael Thomas]

Eliot Lear wrote:

>Doug,
>  
>
>>I know many don't like being so 1970ish, but to conserve DNS payload
>>space, here is one example.  Introducing this change when going to the
>>binary key seems like a good choice.
>>    
>>
>
>While in principle I agree with you - in fact I was looking at ways to
>compress other components of the record, I think we have to be careful
>not to go too far down the line - the real boundary is 512 bytes.  That
>gets us easily to key sizes of 2048 and probably 3072 if desired.  4096
>is just not an option without either going to TCP or EDNS0, no matter
>the key size.  My point is I think this might be a bit of
>over-optimizing.  I would be more interested in making the record easier
>to parse, but even here I'm not too concerned.
>  
>
There's a couple of downsides here. First is if you are delegating the 
_domainkey
subdomain, you'd now need to delegate another subdomain as well. Ie, an
administrative hassle. Second is just remembering: do we really want to have
to remember this prefix vs. that prefix vs. another when we're doing 
host -t's?
I'd rather not.

       Mike