Steve Atkins wrote:
2) a followon spec that specifies what goes on at arf(_at_)arf(_dot_)<domain>"
in terms of remote report forwarding (if any). Rather than relying on inband ARF
destination signalling, I think we should consider doing something with DNS ala
SPF/SenderID and DKIM.
-1.
It's a can of worms buried in a rathole behind a bikeshed that needs painting.
Yeah, but we don't _need_ (2) to have accomplished something useful.
Maybe (2) never gets done. Even if (2) is never specified, most admins
will not need it because they don't intend on forwarding them anywhere
anyway and, secondly, if they do want to forward them, they at least
have something to base automated forwarding of some to select
hand-crafted destinations.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)irtf(_dot_)org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg