Spam wasn't a problem prior to Kantor and Siegel either. I'm really on the fence about whether we need a document here, but clearly the reason we might need it is that it might be worth clearly documenting what publishers of signed domains can expect if they happen to publish a zone with one or more key tag collisions. That's only worth doing if we can actually make such a statement, though.
From my perspective, the question of how (or whether) zones manage to avoid such collisions could be entirely skipped, other than to mention that if they don't solve it, they are at risk of being seen as invalid even though their zones are in principle validatable. > On 9 Jul 2025, at 17:44, Jim Reid <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> On 9 Jul 2025, at 15:43, John R Levine <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I still don't see the point. > > <AOL Mode>Me too!</AOL Mode> > > Wearing no hats and speaking only for myself: > > Key tag collisions don't appear to be causing a significant problem. I > question if it's worth the WG's time kludging a solution for something that > has such a (at best) marginal impact. It would be a different story if there > was an angry mob with pitchforks and blazing torches demanding the WG fix > this problem for them. But there isn't. > > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
