Frank Ellermann wrote: > As explained in Dave's message: The "label" approach does not work > with *wildcards*, for that you'd need a separate record type and/or > a "tag" for the identification in the case of a shared record type > (TXT, SPF, whatever). But his reasoning was backwards, with a "tag" > for the identification of a desired record in a RR set it would also > work for wildcards until the size issue for shared RR types kills it. > > See<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-iab-dns-choices#section-3.1> > for an "authoritative" (from my POV) statement about these issues. >
Ok, I understand what you're saying. Then actually I agree with this logic, and this WAS where I was pondering whether we should move to a new RR type, but I don't know if it is sufficient justification. As I was reminded, because other child labels would countermand an ADSP wildcard, it's not clear to me that wildcards truly buy anything in this case. Am I missing something? Eliot _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
