On Mon, Mar 27, 2006 at 08:57:41AM -0600, Arvel Hathcock allegedly wrote: > My own view is that if DNS is a mandatory mechanism, if 'simple' and
On a tangent to the discussion about splitting the base document, someone suggested that the new DNS RRs specifications be added to the base. I believe this to be a bad idea for scheduling and dependency reasons, perhaps in a surprising way. First off, I believe we could actually get out a DNS RR before the DKIM base if we work at it as it's relatively uncontroversial. And, if we can do that, it will be very helpful in the deployment sphere. Second off, a number of the DNS related mechanisms in the base, such as the hierarchy search, sub-domaining, namespace use and TXT then DKK lookup are likely to cause delays and controversy as base goes through the final review processes. Keeping those issues separate from the RR definition(s) will make the RR process easier. Third off, at IETF65, I received verbal support from a number of the folk in the DNS community that they will assist in the RR creation process. Smoothing the wheels and showing us what obstacles to avoid, if you will. They also helped review my chicken scratchings of a first draft. In summary, regardless of the merits or otherwise, of splitting the base document, I would prefer that the base not-subsume the DKK RR and presumably the Policy/Practice/Preference/Percolator RR or whatever it will be called. Mark. _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
