well, now I'm completely confused. to my eyes, your example fits exactly what 'registered' and 'resolvable' mean, but I guess you have something else in mind.
RFC 1034 and RFC 1035 make many references to resolvers. d/ Steve Atkins wrote: > On Mar 26, 2009, at 6:36 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote: > >> >> Steve Atkins wrote: >>> On Mar 26, 2009, at 6:26 PM, Barry Leiba wrote: >>>> We could say "DNS-resolvable". >>> We could, but it's not actually a requirement that the SDID resolve >>> in the DNS (and in many cases it won't). >> >> Really? >> >> Then how does the receiver obtain the public key for performing >> verification? >> >> key retrieval is defined as using d=. > > If you receive an email with a selector of banjo.aardvark and an SDID > of hatstand.beartrap.blighty.com then you'll hopefully be able to > resolve banjo.aardvark._domainkey.hatstand.beartrap.blighty.com, but > that's all you can say about ability to resolve any query in the > domain tree under the SDID, including the SDID itself. > > At least, that's how I understand it. > > Cheers, > Steve > > _______________________________________________ > NOTE WELL: This list operates according to > http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html > -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
