ietf-mailsig
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: revised Proposed Charter

2005-07-29 08:58:29

Mark,

        I think you fail to understand what the SC section means. It is
not a list of 'bad conduct'. It is simply a list of potential issues
that have to be borne in mind.

        There is no problem with increasing the load on DNS. But
creating unexpected loads or poorly understood loads is a problem.

        So the draft needs to tell folk in DNS-land that the issues have
been considered in sufficient detail.

                Phill

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ietf-mailsig(_at_)mail(_dot_)imc(_dot_)org 
[mailto:owner-ietf-mailsig(_at_)mail(_dot_)imc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of 
domainkeys-feedbackbase02(_at_)yahoo(_dot_)com
Sent: Friday, July 29, 2005 9:38 AM
To: IETF MASS WG
Subject: Re: revised Proposed Charter



--- Andrew Newton <andy(_at_)hxr(_dot_)us> wrote:



On Jul 29, 2005, at 1:19 AM, domainkeys-feedbackbase02(_at_)yahoo(_dot_)com 
wrote:
For a moment I though we were talking about the internet. 
You know,
that public
network where anyone can send any set of bits on any port to any  
participant,
without the encumbrance of seeking approval.

Isn't this sending of bits to any participant of the 
Internet without
encumbrance the entire reason this effort exists?  :)

Ahh yes, quite so. I guess I should have qualified the 
participant as "willing".

Seriously, there appear to be two schools of thought on the meaning
of resource record type: that it merely indicates how the 
rdata bits  
are organized, or that it indicates which application is to 
use the  
rdata.  Which is correct depends on the DNS expert you are 
asking and  
on which day you ask.  The truth is that neither view is 
incorrect.  
Repurposing TXT is not such a problem, repurposing NS probably is.

It's always amused me that the format of the bits is 
excruciatingly important, but how often I send them, where I 
send them (assuming willing recipients, thank you Andy) and 
how the whole internet may have to morph and compensate as a 
consequence, is entirely a private decision.

Which is what makes this thread amusing. We sometimes 
constrain ourselves with self-imposed limits that should be 
seriously challenged from time to time.


Mark.




<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>