william(at)elan.net wrote: > > On Wed, 6 Sep 2006, Jim Fenton wrote: > >> The aspect of user-level SSP that concerns me equally is the transaction >> load. When user-level SSP is "turned on", the verifier MUST query for a >> user-level record in addition to the domain-level record. User-level >> queries are not as effectively cached, since these are queries for >> individual addresses, not domains. > > Actually your tree-walking in general is what's most troublesome to me. > This is what would cause the most problems and most extra queries and > cache misses (I know NXDOMAIN can be cached but don't assume you can > rely on it). And I don't think this will fly during last-call and/or > when DNS folks see this. The tree-walking issue (separate from the user-level SSP) issue has concerned me too. The allman-dkim-ssp-02 draft has it down to 2 queries -- much improved from the previous revision, in part because of the use of a separate RR.
-Jim _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
