Barry:
3. At least one of the sub-tree mechanisms is attempting to glean
information
from the absence of publisher action. Let me explain:
...
c) Checking for the presence of an A record is intended to try
tell you
something in the absence of an explicit action by the domain owner. That's
it's
flaw: It is intuiting ADSP information from non-ADSP action.
While there is nothing wrong with checking the A record, it's
semantics
have literally nothing (directly) to do with ADSP.
I agree with that assessment, but more importantly, I think the working
group doesn't yet agree on whether he's right or not.
As Frank points out, that's not what the draft says. The draft says
that you can pick *any* record. The purpose is simply to determine
whether the domain exists. The argument is semantically different,
particularly when you discuss this in terms of the recommended query, an
MX record. The worst you can say is that there is an interdependency
between the deployment of MX records and ADSP records in the very same
domain. The only reason you have to do the query is because of the
additional labels applied. If you want to get away from this you need
to use a new RR.
Eliot
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html