I will be uncharacteristically brief here in my response to David Crocker:
[...] one true choice for any particular mailbox type. In that eventuality,
"security" becomes a more likely choice for mailbox name than does "cert".
Someone on NANOG told me that CMU's CERT had recommended a "cert" alias in
each domain, used for reaching the Computer Emergency Response Team within
that domain's organization in the event of an externally detected security
event within that organization or domain. I don't know if CMU's CERT does
in fact recommend this, and if so I have no opinion as to whether it's a
good idea. If the consensus here is to remove it, I will remove it.
[...] community deployment. This is otherwise called "buy in". That
is the reason that I'm encouraging formal standards status and a bit of
public discussion.
Deciding that, as I said before, is not within my currently chosen field.
[...] The whole idea is to make sure that a sender chooses the right address.
No. This may be the crux of what is revealing itself to me as ``our
misunderstanding.'' The whole idea is to make sure that something the
sender does will work. Right now, for many domains and/or organizations,
nothing the sender does will work. That is the bug, the only bug, that
I waded into this in order to fix. As before, I care about standards only
if they make things better. Ambiguity seems built into human nature and
human action. Many domain holders will never read or implement the
recommendations in this draft. In that case a ``sender'' should be able
to read this draft and get some ideas. If a domain holder does implement
the full recommendation, then life becomes easier for all senders -- and
my goal is that life should become easier even for senders who DO NOT READ
this draft, but rather follow what they've seen done elsewhere. Even if
the things they've seen elsewhere were done by people who have never read
this draft.
On the other hand, it you mean it merely as a way of reducing the
likelihood of a collision with existing names -- i.e., no formal
modification to the address standard but just choosing unusual characters,
That's all I meant, but I think it's a bad idea for the reasons we both spoke.
"Mongo only pawn in game of life." I'm waiting for MO or SOB to advise me
on what to do next with this thing. If you (or anyone within the sound of
my keyclicks) doesn't like whatever that is, a competing document should be
drawn up since I think that's what the IETF process calls for.