Eliot Lear wrote:
As a matter of fact the way the issue was resolved was through Jim
Fenton's presentation at the last IETF, and not so much through online
discussion.
OK. So I have now also reviewed:
1. Issue 1534 and its associated thread:
<https://rt.psg.com/Ticket/Display.html?id=1534>
2. Minutes from Philadelphia
3. Jim Fenton's slides from Phili
4. The mailing list archive since Philadelphia
What I find is absolutely nothing that deals with any of the points I raised.
And by "deals with" I mean contains substance.
Certainly the thread associated with 1534 shows no consensus and not much
focus.
Jim's slide have nothing on the topic, other than a listing of one of the two
relevant Issues, and the Phili minutes do not make mention of this issue at
all.
And I find nothing in the mailing list archive that discusses it.
Since it is not possible to prove a negative, I'm going to again have to ask
that those asserting that this matter was discussed and resolved need to
document it. And I mean point to concrete materials that confirm the claim, in
both referenced Issues, that the matter was resolved.
As for the very reasonable requests that I clarify how the issue I am raising
is
different from the two cited Issues, here's my best effort:
1. There has been no requirement stated, carefully discussed, and clearly
resolved, that ADSP must deal with a sub-tree or anything other than a single
domain name. What seems to have happened, for some, is a de facto assumption
that it is requires.
However it is not in the charter and it is not in the requirements. No
mailing list discussion (and I will claim no face2face meeting) has discussed
this requirement carefully and to resolution.
2. There is a difference between specifying component mechanisms, versus
discussing concepts and approaches that motivate those mechanisms. The current
specification contains no clear statement of what it is trying to do, with
respect to covering implicit or subordinate (or superior) names.
3. The DNS does not permit covering multiple names competently, for uses
such as ADSP is attempting. Any effort by ADSP to compensate for this
deficiency must be, at best, partial and probably also experimental.
Previous working group discussions in this area -- including those cited as
Issue 1402 and Issue 1534 -- have at most mentioned the higher level issues of
trying to covering more than a single domain name. However they have not
discussed the conceptual distinction, nor have they discussed or resolved the
requirement, nor have they resolved basic technical limitations.
If someone needs more explanation that distinguishes this Issue that I am
raising and what has come before, they need to provide some detail.
That's because the consensus was formed at the meeting, as the minutes
and Jim's presentation shows. Be sure to look at those too.
Which of his slides shows this?
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html