Subject: RE: [ietf-dkim] Montreal agenda, other than base

From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 16:41:48 -0700

> Defining a DKIM specific RR type should not prevent deployment.   
> Defining the DKIM specific RR within the base draft means a 
> new DKIM version is not required to enable its use.  If there 
> are issues  
> handling a DKIM specific RR, this is a problem independent of DKIM.   
> A new RR issue, if there are any, may delay exclusive 
> reliance upon the DKIM specific RR.

I expect the deployment of DNSSEC to solve the RR problem.

I believe DKIM creates the market for DNSSEC.

If you can't see the problem I know a bunch of philosophers you might want to take out to dinner.

_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html

---

From: Douglas Otis <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 17:45:59 -0700

On Jun 16, 2006, at 4:41 PM, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:

>> Defining the DKIM specific RR within the base draft means a new  
>> DKIM version is not required to enable its use.  If there are  
>> issues handling a DKIM specific RR, this is a problem independent  
>> of DKIM.  A new RR issue, if there are any, may delay exclusive  

This seems to suggest DNSSEC clears the way for reliance upon EDNS  
where RR size becomes less of an issue.  Being pessimistic, the  
relative timing for employing 2048 bit keys may not coincide with  
developments in DNS.  It would be good to get opinions on that topic  
from the DNS group.  Having a viable alternative not gated to  
independent developments seems a more conservative approach.  It may  
be worth having a brief presentation of the process for publishing  
and retrieving content of new RR types to get a better understanding  
of current practices.

> I believe DKIM creates the market for DNSSEC.

It will be interesting to see what is uncovered by either.  Perhaps  
DLV offers a solution for both. : )

-Doug