>>> I would rather have a 6 month pushback from the IESG than a spec that is >>> dependent on the next release of Windows Server to become viable.
>The only problem is that I don't know what it means. Someone was predicting another round of DNS wars, of the define a new RR vs.reusing TXT variety, with hostilities breaking out via the IESG. My position, which I believe is widely shared among the DKIM group, is that the _domainkey subdomain introduces a new namespace within which all TXT records must be DKIM keys, so we're not overloading any existing TXT record. We might want to add a sentence or two warning people that they'll be sorry if they put any other kind of TXT record under _domainkey, but that's cosmetic. This is a fairly important principle, since we're doing the same thing for the SRV records in CSV and will probably do a lot of other namespaces that redefine existing record types in the future. The sentiment up at >>> is that a new RR type is such a bad idea that it'd be worth a six month fight with the IESG to prevent it, but I think we all agree that a much better outcome would be to go ahead with the technically sound plan we have without the detour. R's, John _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
