It appears that Wes Hardaker <[email protected]> said: >Philip Homburg <[email protected]> writes: > >> Just a random idea: turn the protocol upside down
Down the hall in the DKIM WG we've been pondering PQC DKIM signatures and running into a similar issue that the key records, which happen to be TXT records, are going to get really big. So that would be helpful for us, too. >You and Ben suggested basically the same thing, which definitely is an >option. That does require hashing for every request on the server side, >or keeping state of the hashes on the server side for performance >reasons. Seems to be it depends on how many of these you get. If it's not a lot you could just hash when you get a query that needs them. Or you could make the camel sad with a kludge to cache the hashes for queries that seem likely to benefit from them, based on some combination of response size and query type. R"s, John _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
