Jim Fenton wrote: >>| [FWS] within DNS records is just wrong. > It's the "folding" part that is the problem > here, and we should be using [WSP], right?
Right, that solves *one* of *three* potential problems. The second problem might be WSP, on the general list we just discuss this wrt John's net-utf8 draft (Last Call). John argues that HTAB is typically ambiguous and SHOULD be avoided. If you buy that you get [SP] instead of [WSP], but I think what you really want is either *SP or *WSP, zero or more spaces, not only zero or one. [FWS] without folding is *WSP, not [WSP]. If that's the case we hit the third potential problem, record size. Allowing to "waste space" (pun intended) is not what you want in a DNS record. SPF allows 1*SP instead of limiting itself to SP where a space is really needed to separate terms. But SSP introduces unnecessary [FWS], where it is not required as separator, simplified: | tag = "dkim" [FWS] "=" [FWS] ( "x" / "y" ) The "=" already separates name and value, you could as well write: | tag = "dkim=" ( "x" / "y" ) Conserving space might be irrelevant depending on other issues, but the draft does not mention UDP at all, unlike RFC 4408 3.1.4. "Allow beautiful SSP records for human readers" is a rather dubious design goal in RFC 5016. Frank _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
