[ietf-dkim] Requirements clarification: Standard for resource record name space collision

[Paul Hoffman]

At 1:02 PM -0400 8/9/06, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>***************
>*** 474,480 ****
>             expectation is "few".]
>
>      3.  Discovery mechanism MUST NOT overload semantics of existing DNS
>!        resource records where name space collisions are possible.
>
>   5.2.  Transport requirements
>
>--- 479,485 ----
>             expectation is "few".]
>
>      3.  Discovery mechanism MUST NOT overload semantics of existing DNS
>!        resource records where name space collisions are reasonably likely.
>
>   5.2.  Transport requirements
>
>***************
>
>Making name space collision impossible (the written requirement) is a high
>bar.  Higher than was used for DKIM base.  Reasonably likely seems like a
>better standard.  Impossible would seem to require a new RR.

Actually, that's not true. For -base, there was no chance that a host 
name (as compared to a domain name) would collide with a name that 
had the chosen label. I think saying "impossible" is reasonable if 
you clarify the difference. It would be really nice not to revisit 
the wars that erupted when the IDN WG picked a label prefix.