>Even experimental seems a bit strong for a lookup method that has seen >so much debate without serious improvement. The hashing method is poorly >specified, and stronger text would not help - we are still preventing >lookups in case of lower/uppercase differences, subadresses (peter+foo), >dot insertion (gmail). > >Let me emphasize that: the draft is, in its current form, undeployable >for Google Mail. While I don't expect that they want to, this is a >strong signal that the draft is broken.
Don't forget the equally serious scaling problem. Since hashes aren't reversible, if you have a mail system with 100,000,000 users who have keys (not implausible considering the current size of Gmail, Yahoo, and Hotmail), you have to precompute all 100,000,000 hashes before you can answer any queries. If the records are on average 3K, that's a 300 gigabyte zone file. The largest existing signed zone file of which I am aware, the .COM TLD, is about 10 gb before signing. I realize computers are getting faster every day, but a design that requires static zone files an order of magnitude bigger than any that exist now doesn't seem like a great idea. Different encodings could address this issue, too. R's, John _______________________________________________ dane mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dane
