Eliot Lear said the following:
By my recollection,
this topic alone has been discussed at at least two - and possibly three
- working group meetings. Please advise.
This topic has definitely been discussed a number of times. And Stephen
and I have discussed Dave's note from today, and think it's appropriate
to continue the discussion a bit. We need to keep it focused and come
to a clear conclusion -- the problem is that we don't think we really
have agreement on this question.
The particular point in Dave's note that troubles me, and that I don't
think we have agreement on, is his third one:
3. At least one of the sub-tree mechanisms is attempting to glean
from the absence of publisher action. Let me explain:
c) Checking for the presence of an A record is intended to try tell
something in the absence of an explicit action by the domain owner. That's
flaw: It is intuiting ADSP information from non-ADSP action.
While there is nothing wrong with checking the A record, it's semantics
have literally nothing (directly) to do with ADSP.
I agree with that assessment, but more importantly, I think the working
group doesn't yet agree on whether he's right or not. So let's clear
this up with a focused discussion that gets one of the following results:
* We have consensus that ADSP should explicitly say that in the absence
of an ADSP record you have no information, and you treat the message as
you did before DKIM/ADSP existed. Any other processing might be
proposed as an extension, in another document.
* We have consensus that there IS a well-defined process that we
recommend following in the absence of an ADSP record, and that having
the ADSP document define this is within scope for the base document.
Yes, this discussion is in scope for now. Let's keep the discussion on
track, and resolve this quickly.
Barry, as DKIM working group chair
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to