IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Pre-picking one solution (Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: WG Review: Domain Keys Identified Mail) (dkim)

Mark Delany <markd+ietfdiscuss@yahoo-inc.com> Fri, 23 December 2005 04:24 UTC

Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EpeTu-00026v-Nb; Thu, 22 Dec 2005 23:24:38 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EpeTs-00026q-LG for ietf@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 22 Dec 2005 23:24:36 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA21246 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Dec 2005 23:23:30 -0500 (EST)
Received: from snake.corp.yahoo.com ([216.145.52.229]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EpeWo-0001Dl-VZ for ietf@ietf.org; Thu, 22 Dec 2005 23:27:40 -0500
Received: (qmail 66871 invoked by uid 6042); 23 Dec 2005 04:24:23 -0000
Delivered-To: markd-intercept-ietf@ietf.org
DomainKey-Trace: U=http://domainkeys.sourceforge.net; V=$Revision: 1.4 $; h=::::::::::12::::::::::::::::::::::58:::::1:::3:3::2:5:16:34:1:36:9:33:15:11:14:15:5:12:3:22:3:7:1:7::12:5:2:5:11:2:8:1::3::1:2:6:2::3::7:1:5::1:1:2:::1::1::::27:2:20:14:56:14:6:5:46:2:12:21:19:31:38:9:2:16:25:27:10:5:3:1:8; H=::::::::::12:::12:::::::::::::::::::58:::::1:::3:3::2:5:16:34:1:36:9:33:15:11:14:15:5:12:3:22:3:7:1:7::12:5:2:5:11:2:8:1::3::1:2:6:2::3::7:1:5::1:1:2:::1::1::::27:2:20:14:56:14:6:5:46:2:12:21:19:31:38:9:2:16:25:27:10:5:3:1:8; b=::::::::::31::::::::::::::::::::::209::::::1:2:3:3::1:12:3:15::7:4:6:1:1:4:1:1:1::3::::7:2::4:::12:4:3::1:10::6::4:5:2:5:::4:9:4::1::::::::::72:10:27:33:108:13:13:32:75::9:38:25:68:68:27:1:58:64:88:30:10:18:4:16:2; B=::::::::::31:::31:::::::::::::::::::209::::::1:2:3:3::1:12:3:15::7:4:6:1:1:4:1:1:1::3::::7:2::4:::12:4:3::1:10::6::4:5:2:5:::4:9:4::1::::::::::72:10:27:33:108:13:13:32:75::9:38:25:68:68:27:1:58:64:88:30:10:18:4:16:2;
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=simple; s=snake; d=yahoo-inc.com; b=fSM6lGPj533k8Te55zgk0ZX59N7K3/sZ8dUBSryf6pTewgNgYdkSftauINlOWUKU
Received: (qmail 66858 invoked by uid 6042); 23 Dec 2005 04:24:23 -0000
Message-ID: <20051223042423.66857.qmail@snake.corp.yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 04:24:23 +0000
From: Mark Delany <markd+ietfdiscuss@yahoo-inc.com>
To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org, ietf@ietf.org
Mail-Followup-To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org, ietf@ietf.org
References: <BFCF9BD0.668D8%fluffy@cisco.com> <E1F958625AE876F8C202368D@svartdal.hjemme.alvestrand.no> <43AAA9CF.2050303@cs.utk.edu> <Pine.LNX.4.62.0512220617380.23251@sokol.elan.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0512220617380.23251@sokol.elan.net>; from william@elan.net on Thu, Dec 22, 2005 at 06:35:47AM -0800
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: ea4ac80f790299f943f0a53be7e1a21a
Cc:
Subject: Re: Pre-picking one solution (Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: WG Review: Domain Keys Identified Mail) (dkim)
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org

On Thu, Dec 22, 2005 at 06:35:47AM -0800, william(at)elan.net allegedly wrote:

> Not necessarily. One of the proposals that went into DKIM had characteristic
> of storing public key fingerprints in dns. This seems quite close to DK but
> has a number of advantages and unlike DKIM or DK does not put serious extra
> pressure on DNS infrastructure

Unproved speculation. As you know, email, compared to HTTP and P2P
(neither of which sought approval from the IETF) constitutes an
increasingly tiny part of the Internet load these days. The serious
pressure comes from applications that never came near the IETF.

> like ip addresses (i.e. fixed size small data) would not work so well for 
> when data served & answer would either come close to or exceed 512bytes 
> UDP limit.

Unproved speculation. As you know, 512 is not a UDP limit it's a DNS
implementation limit which was long ago removed by EDNS0 - an IETF
standard.

The other minor matter is that the Internet is already participating
in a billion+ DK signed and verified emails per day - I've been
watching, but as yet, no news at 11. At what point do you expect the
pressure to be noticed?

William. I admire your interest in optimizing DNS load, but, as Knuth
might ask, is it premature? If you think not, convince us otherwise.


Mark.

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email