----- Original Message ----- From: "william(at)elan.net" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> That "3pl" may have been misspelled in the table listing possible tags > as "dl". Please check. You reviewed an earlier draft-01 which had it as "dl". I changed it to 3PL, made other reviewer changes/input, renumbered the draft to 00 and submitted as so. Hopefully it will be announced today. The latest is: http://isdg.net/public/ietf/drafts/draft-santos-dkim-dsap-00.txt http://isdg.net/public/ietf/drafts/draft-santos-dkim-dsap-00.html http://isdg.net/public/ietf/drafts/draft-santos-dkim-dsap-00.xml Are you suggesting it be "dl=" again? >> One initial and obvious design consideration is length limit related. >> One reviewer did suggest some 'include' concept or protocol to access >> large list. > > SPF has worked those details out so you might consider its apprach. > But personally I think general "include" is too open and better > is to use something similar to SPF macros where reference can be > made to another locator (with locator dns name based on From email > address or domain) to verify that domain is listed there but > there would never be any more then one additional dns lookup. > An illustration of that concept is: > 3pl={d}._3pl; > which when present with "From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]" causes lookup > at 'example.com._3pl._policy...' Yes, you suggested this for the draft. But I think this is still open how to best do this, if at all. The barrier is DNS packet size limitations. The worst case is a UDP Truncate response followed up by a TCP Stream query, so 2 lookups. It is better to recommend to always begin with a TCP request to minimize the request? -- Hector Santos, Santronics Software, Inc. http://www.santronics.com _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
