Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: Survey of Domain Verification Techniques using DNS

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 <johnl@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
>