Frank Ellermann wrote:
Jim Fenton wrote:
My personal opinion is along the lines of "Argument Con", that it is not
up to the DKIM Working Group to define a fully general policy mechanism.
I kind of like the concept, but unfortunately I haven't the time at the
moment to find out why this couldn't be somehow built on top of U/S-NAPTR
Phill should probably be the one to comment directly on the reason for
the new XPTR record type, but I'm under the impression that he's trying
to avoid conflict with existing uses of PTR. I, at least, had not
considered use of NAPTR here; can you outline how it might work?
There may be good arguments for IETF to charter some work in this area,
but that's a much larger question than this WG and undoubtedly a much
more time-consuming one as well.
<sigh /> Without knowing it you might have repeated a MARID argument.
I suspect I may have. Are you suggesting we take this on?
-Jim
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html