[ietf-dkim] dkim-base: _domainkey vs _dkim
mike at mtcc.com
Wed Apr 26 13:18:53 PDT 2006
Eliot Lear wrote:
>>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
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
I'd rather not.
More information about the ietf-dkim