[ietf-dkim] SSP issues

[Steve Atkins]

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  
>>> discussion,
>>> 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  
a website.

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.

Cheers,
   Steve