>So is using the DNS in fact necessary? If it is, we may need text >that explicitly says why at some stage.
I think we're all presuming that if a receipient uses SSP, it'll be doing a query per message to fetch the SSP info for that message. If we expect the query to be small enough that the query and response will each fit into 512 bytes, DNS is the natural way to handle it because it's widely available, has good caches, etc., and is really fast. If the info is big enough that it'll need a TCP session, then HTTP makes sense, since it's also widely available, has good caches, etc., and is about as fast as can be given that it needs a TCP session. I'm hoping that we can constrain the SSP info to a modest number of bits, so DNS is is. If SSP bloats up to the point where it doesn't fit in 512, then it's http. R's, John _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
