Re: dkim-base: _domainkey vs _dkim

Eliot Lear wrote:

> Doug,
>  
>
> > I know many don't like being so 1970ish, but to conserve DNS payload
> > space, here is one example.  Introducing this change when going to the
> > binary key seems like a good choice.
> >    
>
> While in principle I agree with you - in fact I was looking at ways to
> compress other components of the record, I think we have to be careful
> not to go too far down the line - the real boundary is 512 bytes.  That
> gets us easily to key sizes of 2048 and probably 3072 if desired.  4096
> is just not an option without either going to TCP or EDNS0, no matter
> the key size.  My point is I think this might be a bit of
> over-optimizing.  I would be more interested in making the record easier
> to parse, but even here I'm not too concerned.
>  
There's a couple of downsides here. First is if you are delegating the 
_domainkey
subdomain, you'd now need to delegate another subdomain as well. Ie, an
administrative hassle. Second is just remembering: do we really want to have
to remember this prefix vs. that prefix vs. another when we're doing 
host -t's?
I'd rather not.

      Mike