Mark Delany wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 30, 2006 at 10:09:24AM -0800, Jim Fenton allegedly wrote:
>
>
>> There's a different situation for key records and
>> policy/practice/(petunia?) records. The choice of whether to use a new
>> RR or a TXT key record should be retrieved is something that can be
>>
On Mar 30, 2006, at 1:47 PM, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Crocker
1. signers MUST have a TXT and SHOULD have a new RR.
2. signers using RR indicate this with q=.
3. verifiers that see q= SHOULD query for that RR but
MAY query for the TXT.
S
PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Delany
> Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2006 4:40 PM
> To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
> Subject: Re: SSP RR vs TXT [was Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP and o= values]
>
> > 3. verifiers that see q= SHOULD query for that RR but MAY
> > query for the TXT.
>
Mark Delany wrote:
3. verifiers that see q= SHOULD query for that RR but MAY query for
the TXT.
Single query, no matter what the situation. No failures, so no fallbacks.
Right. I conflated the need to support both types by the sender with
the need for a fallback query. So the fallback is e
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Crocker
> 1. signers MUST have a TXT and SHOULD have a new RR.
>
> 2. signers using RR indicate this with q=.
>
> 3. verifiers that see q= SHOULD query for that RR but
> MAY query for the TXT.
>
> Single query, no matter what the situation. No
> 3. verifiers that see q= SHOULD query for that RR but MAY query for
> the TXT.
>
> Single query, no matter what the situation. No failures, so no fallbacks.
Right. I conflated the need to support both types by the sender with
the need for a fallback query. So the fallback is eliminated, but
Mark Delany wrote:
policy/practice/(petunia?) records. The choice of whether to use a new
RR or a TXT key record should be retrieved is something that can be
represented in the signature (the query type, q=, tag has been suggested
which makes sense).
As a practical matter, I don't see how th
f Of Mark Delany
> Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2006 3:24 PM
> To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
> Subject: Re: SSP RR vs TXT [was Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP and o= values]
>
> On Thu, Mar 30, 2006 at 10:09:24AM -0800, Jim Fenton allegedly wrote:
>
> > There's a different situation f
On Thu, Mar 30, 2006 at 10:09:24AM -0800, Jim Fenton allegedly wrote:
> There's a different situation for key records and
> policy/practice/(petunia?) records. The choice of whether to use a new
> RR or a TXT key record should be retrieved is something that can be
> represented in the signature (
On Mar 30, 2006, at 10:09 AM, Jim Fenton wrote:
There's a different situation for key records and policy/practice/
(petunia?) records. The choice of whether to use a new RR or a TXT
key record should be retrieved is something that can be represented
in the signature (the query type, q=, ta
> From: Jim Fenton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> There's a different situation for key records and
> policy/practice/(petunia?) records. The choice of whether to
> use a new RR or a TXT key record should be retrieved is
> something that can be represented in the signature (the query
> type, q=
Hector Santos wrote:
> - Original Message -
> From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
>> If DKIM deploys then DNSSEC will be pulled along in its wake
>> which in turn will drag deployment of the extension mechanism.
>> Making deployment of the extension mechanism a necessar
- Original Message -
From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> If DKIM deploys then DNSSEC will be pulled along in its wake
> which in turn will drag deployment of the extension mechanism.
> Making deployment of the extension mechanism a necessary
> deployment condition creates
On Tue, 28 Mar 2006, Tony Hansen wrote:
So it sounds like their database *will* support the additional RR
values, it's just that they don't make it easy to use them.
Until they get their standard interface fixed, it sounds like Microsoft
(or a 3rd party) could provide an alternative interface
> From: Hector Santos [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Follow the MARID May/2004 "Wild Card MXes" Thread at:
>
> http://www.mhonarc.org/archive/html/ietf-mxcomp/2004-05/msg00504.html
> http://www.mhonarc.org/archive/html/ietf-mxcomp/2004-05/msg00461.html
>
> Bob Atkinson seems to explain in detail.
> From: Tony Hansen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> So it sounds like their database *will* support the
> additional RR values, it's just that they don't make it easy
> to use them.
Not to a level that is remotely meaningful. If you cannot save the
information out of the database or query it using
uot;Tony Hansen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "IETF DKIM WG"
Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 8:46 AM
Subject: Re: SSP RR vs TXT [was Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP and o= values]
> So it sounds like their database *will* suppor
On Mon, 27 Mar 2006, Hector Santos wrote:
- 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 acce
So it sounds like their database *will* support the additional RR
values, it's just that they don't make it easy to use them.
Until they get their standard interface fixed, it sounds like Microsoft
(or a 3rd party) could provide an alternative interface that
additionally stored the RRs in a separa
I have to agree 100% here Philip.
My recollection of the issue was related to Active Directory (AD)visions
versus the non-Active Directory versions. For example, we don't use AD, so
this might be an issue for us. I believe there were some example shown
where Windows DNS IP Helper API (iphlpapi.d
Hector Santos wrote:
- Original Message -
From: "Jim Fenton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
This is all hearsay, but what I hear is that this problem was corrected
in SP2.
I just realize something
Should we resolving Mike's non-standard DKIM compatability problem firs
- Original Message -
From: "Jim Fenton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> This is all hearsay, but what I hear is that this problem was corrected
> in SP2.
I just realize something
Should we resolving Mike's non-standard DKIM compatability problem first? I
mean, why bother to talking about RR
ector
SantosCc: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.orgSubject: Re: SSP RR vs
TXT [was Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP and o= values]
Hector Santos wrote:
- Original Message -
From: "Jim Fenton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
- There is only a small deployment of SSP records at this point
- There
Hector Santos wrote:
- Original Message -
From: "Jim Fenton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
- 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
"n
- Original Message -
From: "Jim Fenton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
> - 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 s
25 matches
Mail list logo
