Re: [dane] Encoding local parts in better ways

["Wiley, Glen" <[e-mail]>]

John,

I read the draft.

In the list of approaches you include literal, encoded, regex and pointer
but I didn¹t see a place to refer to hashes (such as SHA224).  While there
are different views on the use of hashes for local parts, would it makes
sense to allow for the future use of a hash?

Section 5 is interestingŠI think I follow the approach but it would be
helpful to have a more detailed example that describes the set of records
that would be published to implement a DFA and the step by step resolution
for a specific local part.

-- 
Glen Wiley

Principal Engineer
Verisign, Inc.
[phone]

A5E5 E373 3C75 5B3E 2E24
6A0F DC65 2354 9946 C63A




On 9/20/15, 11:54 PM, "John Levine" <[e-mail]> wrote:

>I've sent in a new version of draft-levine-dns-mailbox-01 that
>describes a bunch of ways to encode mail address local parts in ways
>that don't need canonicalization or address guessing.
>
>Take a particular look at section 5, which publishes regular
>expressions to match a domain's mail addresses.
>
>* Can represent any plausible local part syntax including case
>folding, noise characters, multiple ways to write Unicode characters,
>suffixes where some are ignored and some aren't, BATV, and VERP.
>
>* Reasonably fast lookup (max of one query per localpart character)
>
>* Works fine with static zones served by ordinary name servers .
>
>* Doesn't make bulk addresss harvesting easy.
>
>If you really want to do experiments in publishing mail info in the
>DNS, I think this would be a rather interesting one.
>
>R's,
>John
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>dane mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dane