[ietf-dkim] New Issue: New resource record type

[Scott Kitterman]

Any design the requires a new RR type is not deployable anytime soon.

As I said before, if a new RR type is the path we are going down, then we may 
as well quit and go home now.

To put it in requirements language, I think it is a requirement that SSP be 
deployable with the same DNS infrastructure that supports base (this is 
independent of where in the namespace the record goes - as long as it's 
somewhere in TXT we can design the details later).

Scott K

On Monday 16 October 2006 08:51, Michael Thomas wrote:
>  From a requirements standpoint, I'd just assume we not go into this level
> of detail. The high level bits of deterministic number of lookups and other
> things seem fairly uncontroversial, but the engineering/deployment
> considerations
> of the RR problem require a lot more detail and/or experimental evidence
> to be
> examined. I don't think that a requirements document is the right venue
> to run
> that debate.
>
>        Mike
>
> Jim Fenton wrote:
> >Eliot Lear wrote:
> >>Jim,
> >>
> >>Fair points.  One possibility, by the way, is that we use the SAME
> >>prefix but simply with new attributes.  That way you get the whole thing
> >>in one shot.
> >
> >I'm not sure what you have in mind here.  One of the benefits of using a
> >new RR type is that it may allow us to get away from the use of a prefix
> >entirely, which in turn may shorten the search process by detecting
> >nonexistent domains more easily.  I'm not certain how well this
> >mechanism works, but you can see what I'm talking about in
> >draft-allman-dkim-ssp-02.
> >
> >-Jim
> >_______________________________________________
> >NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
> >http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
>
> _______________________________________________
> NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
> http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html