+1. The allow list was added primarily recognizing it as a requirement understanding it would be one of the design issues to work out.
Since the limitation would be part of the total query size anyway, one consideration I had in mind was to suggest TCP stream lookups instead to avoid any UPD truncate responses. But off hand, the worst case is 2 lookups, a UCP truncate followed up by switching to TCP. This is one area I will punt to the DNS experts. -- Hector Santos, Santronics Software, Inc. http://www.santronics.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark Delany" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, July 28, 2006 11:32 AM Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] include > > I'd venture to say that "include" ala SPF is specific NON-REQUIREMENT, > > as it violates the requirement that the query operation provide a > > deterministic > > number of queries for discovery/fetching. > > +1 > > I see very marginal benefit to that sort of indirection and a very > large cost in operational complexity and test cases. > > Besides which, inheriting topology might be a common convenience that > justifies complexity in an IP based model, but inheriting policy seems > a much less likely and thus less compelling reason in a domain based > model. > > > Mark. > _______________________________________________ > NOTE WELL: This list operates according to > http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html > _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
