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?
-Doug
.
dnsop resources:_____________________________________________________
web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop.html
mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop/index.html
