[ietf-dkim] SSP issues
steve at blighty.com
Wed May 30 18:38:22 PDT 2007
On May 30, 2007, at 6:16 PM, Hector Santos wrote:
> Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> On Wednesday 30 May 2007 18:22, Jim Fenton wrote:
>>> (2) SSP record type (TXT vs. something new). Only 4 messages in
>>> mostly saying "if you support TXT, don't bother with anything
>>> else." Again, no clear consensus.
>> Agreed. There is also a view that if you go with a new RR type,
>> don't bother with SSP. By the time a new RR type is widely
>> deployable, the market will have found a different solution.
>> Scott K
> IMO, I think we should stop wasting further time on this repetitive
> issue and just establish two, a new RR with a TXT fallback, as part
> of the specs.
SRV provides some extra functionality over an A record for publishing
But the A record works. Anyone publishing a website needs to provide
the A record. If they just published a SRV record, most clients
wouldn't find or visit the site.
A client needs to support the A record, and because it can safely
assume that every site has an A record, looking for an almost
certainly non-existent SRV record before looking for an A record is
simply overhead and delay. Clients can safely just look for the A
record and save themselves the pain.
More information about the ietf-dkim