>
> On Jul 18, 2006, at 12:59 PM, Joe Abley wrote:
>
> >> Which alternative would you expect to cause greater
> >> interoperability problems?
> >
> > The requirement to parse free-form data from TXT RDATA is hardly a
> > recipe for trivial interop. From the list of specification nits I
> > saw in the first DKIM meeting relating to parsing the TXT RDATA,
> > one might also conclude that it's not easy to specify, either.
>
> While a valid consideration, these details are within the control of
> the WG.
>
> > Unless Microsoft has an enormous hidden market share in authority
> > servers and ISP mail relays, I'm not sure why they're being singled
> > out as problematic with respect to new RRtypes and DKIM, incidentally.
>
> The signature can also be verified at the MUA. The desire is to
> ensure greater availability than just MTAs. Do you know of barriers
> related to deploying new RR types for a typical user when they are
> running an MS OS?
If the end user wants to use DKIM then they will get their
infrastructure fixed if it can't handle a DKIM record.
If you really don't want to add a new record then use the
DNS to point to a HTTP(S) server that will serve the requested
record. Don't overload the TXT record.
Doing this may be a good thing in its own right. The DNS
was designed to handle small RRsets. From what I've seen
of DKIM the RRsets are getting big. This has impacts on
DNS cache design.
> -Doug
> .
> dnsop resources:_____________________________________________________
> web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop.html
> mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop/index.html
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
.
dnsop resources:_____________________________________________________
web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop.html
mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop/index.html
