Thanks all for the feedback! I've attempted to capture the following feedback here <https://shivankaul.com/draft-sahib-domain-verification-techniques/draft-sahib-domain-verification-techniques.html> :
1. Remove the naming of specific implementations 2. Remove normative language 3. Summarize recommendations up front The audience here are providers. I think specific feedback about what recommendations to include can be worked upon by the WG as a whole, once/if we agree that the document is worth pursuing. Does this help? On Tue, 12 Jul 2022 at 11:50, John R. Levine <jo...@iecc.com> wrote: > > Alternately, mostly deleting section 3 (the survey part), renaming the > > document and focusing on section 4 (the recommendations part) might be > > worthwhile, but that section is all about formatting TXT messages in a > > specific way and that's generally been considered anathema for DNS for > oh so > > many reasons. So that may also not be a correct approach. > > That ship sailed a long time ago with the failure of the SPF record. > People use TXT records for one-off things and they're not going to stop. > > I agree that the list of implementations should be deleted or summarized > in an appendix. > > What might be useful is a shorter recommendation section with no MUST > stuff, since it's not standards track, saying something like: > > If you use a TXT record, use a _prefix ond register it in the IANA prefix > registry. Use a fixed descriptive initial part in the text string so you > don't get faked out by wildcards. Do not add more junk to the TXT records > in the domain itself. > > If you use a CNAME record, use either a registered _prefix, or a > pseudo-random prefix. > > R's, > John > > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list > DNSOP@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop >
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
