[ietf-dkim] SSP issues
steve at blighty.com
Fri Jun 1 23:18:50 PDT 2007
On Jun 1, 2007, at 7:30 PM, Arvel Hathcock 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.
> If a new RR can solve the wildcard issue and we feel that this is a
> significant issue worth solving (or at least addressing) then
> perhaps we should create a system that looks for a new RR first and
> failing that, falls back to TXT.
> I don't think the "if you support TXT, don't bother with anything
> else" position is correct. If we come out with a spec that states
> "SSP clients must query for new RR first, then TXT" senders would
> be right to expect compliance.
What would "compliance" entail prior to universal, or at least
widespread, support for the new RR by all stub resolvers and
recursive resolvers? Or would you wait for that widespread support
before releasing the spec?
More information about the ietf-dkim