MX dot was (Re: [ietf-dkim] TXT wildcards SSP issues

[Hector Santos]

Douglas Otis wrote:
> 
> On Jun 6, 2007, at 3:35 PM, Hector Santos wrote:
> 
>> But why NO MAIL?  Why not other policies?
>>
>> A system can have a default NO MAIL policy or a default I SIGN 
>> EVERYTHING  or anything else.
>>
>> Here is a workable Wildcard syntax that has a default NO MAIL POLICY
>>
>> *._ssp       0  TXT   ... no mail policy...
>> _ssp         0  TXT   ... I may sign ..
>> public._ssp  0  TXT   ... I never sign ...
>> sales._ssp   0  TXT   ... I always sign ..
>> corp._ssp    0  TXT   ... I always sign ..
>>
>> and one with a default I ALWAYS SIGN
>>
>> *._ssp       0  TXT    ... I always sign ..
>> public._ssp  0  TXT   ... I never sign ...
> 
> This requires a transaction at every label within the domain in 
> question, where of course, this also clobbers SLDs.

Explain to me why this is a problem?

I am borrowing the logic used from one of the original LMAP proposals, 
DMP, which SPF based on its merged designed with another LMAP RMX? proposal.

This is a single lookup by the client, no traversal, no loop, required.

THe *._SSP record gives you the global default result as desired by the 
  main domain.

So regardless of the subdomains provided, you have a GLOBAL default.

Then for specific subdomains, you can further defined specific txt 
records to override the default.

Again, I am no DNS expert, but is there a TECHNICAL problem with this?

Explain it to me in terms of where there is overhead, pressure or lots 
of work, if any, on the DNS server?


-- 
Sincerely

Hector Santos, CTO
http://www.santronics.com
http://santronics.blogspot.com