On 4/3/2019 10:58 AM, John Levine wrote:
In article <3bebe973-0536-96cd-983e-240ba4346...@dcrocker.net> you write:
Comments eagerly sought, of course.
This seems sorta kinda like my dbound draft, only with _tagged TXT
records rather than a new rrtype, and (unless I missed something) a
hope that somehow you can use a yet to be invented cache to avoid
walking up the tree, where mine used wildcards to do one lookup per
boundary regardless of the tree depth.
Section 7's suggestion for using Additional information does not rely on
caching.
Reliance on existing wildcard depends on propagation of a new RR, which
continues to be problematic. There's a reason the Attrleaf table has so
many entries...
And while there is certainly conceptual overlap with your earlier
proposal, the current one has differences I'd class as significant.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
