[ietf-dkim] ISSUE: Revise wildcard discussion
nobody at xyzzy.claranet.de
Mon Jun 2 01:44:10 PDT 2008
Eliot Lear wrote:
>> The various ADSP drafts fail to provide the essential version tag
>> for their identification, this is no general TXT wildcard problem.
>> The general TXT problem is the *size* of all RXT records combined,
>> and the various ADSP drafts refuse to share SPF records for their
>> limited size needs.
> While I myself am leaning away from TXT records for other reasons,
> this is not one of them. ADSP is a bit more safe because like DKIM
> it uses a _adsp label. If you look up a TXT record with that label
> it makes less sense to expect anything other than ADSP.
As explained in Dave's message: The "label" approach does not work
with *wildcards*, for that you'd need a separate record type and/or
a "tag" for the identification in the case of a shared record type
(TXT, SPF, whatever). But his reasoning was backwards, with a "tag"
for the identification of a desired record in a RR set it would also
work for wildcards until the size issue for shared RR types kills it.
for an "authoritative" (from my POV) statement about these issues.
More information about the ietf-dkim