Mark Delany wrote: > On Sun, Mar 26, 2006 at 10:45:31PM -0500, Tony Hansen allegedly wrote: > >> As promised at the dkim meeting, I'm resending a suggestion about o= >> that was sent in November and again in February. >> >> At the Wednesday meeting, it was suggested that we replace the single >> character o=? (etc.) tags with tags like o=WEAK (etc.). The thrust of >> the messages was that we should use something that is even more meaningful. >> > > One question Tony. Are you assuming that TXT will remain as the only > Policy/Practice retrieval mechanism? If a new RR is eventually > described, does that obviate the need to anglicize the current format? > Or does that depend on when "eventually" is? > Given that:
- There is only a small deployment of SSP records at this point - There are good reasons for going to a new RR - Unlike key records, there's no way to advertise whether to do a TXT or "new RR" query for SSP it seems like there are good reasons to accelerate the definition and adoption a new RR for SSP. In its most terse form, the "practices" could mostly be defined as a number of independent, one-bit values. In any case, spending a lot of time on a definition that assumes TXT records doesn't seem productive. -Jim _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
