[ietf-dkim] Re: Jim's issues - one more try

[Frank Ellermann]

Stephen Farrell wrote:

> please respond, by Monday, to this with +1/-1's

You were probably not talking about this Monday, but...

>     Issue#1: +1 - include use of XPTR as part of ssp-00
>     Issue#1: -1 - exclude use of XPTR from ssp-00

...I still like Phil's general solution (+1).

>     Issue#2: +1 - Define how to use a TXT RR for SSP policies
>                   (with or without something else)
>     Issue#2: -1 - Don't use TXT at all, only use new RRs for SSP

IFF #1 AND #3 end up with -1 I'd favour a new RR (-1) for #2.

>     Issue#3: +1 - Define an upward query based approach to finding
>                   SSP statements
>     Issue#3: -1 - Define a wildcard based approach to finding SSP
>                   statemetns

Don't care, both ways are far from optimal.  Folks run into the
known limitations with TXT wildcards if they try to use this for
SSP _and_ SPF _and_ whatever comes next.

Frank