On Apr 30, 2008, at 11:40 AM, Arvel Hathcock wrote:
I would love to hear a little more from you on scenarios in which the
limited treewalking functionality would benefit you or your receiver
customers. The more specific the better. What potential deliver/not
deliver decisions are made and based on what criteria.
As far as I can understand, the "treewalking" doesn't benefit the
receivers at all. It's a convenience items for senders. From the
receiver point of view, if a spec says "look here for the ADSP record"
then receivers will do so and expect that the senders have placed the
information where it's supposed to be (even if they have to do that
manually for every one of their sub-domains). Now, whether and to
what
degree senders will appreciate and embrace this is another matter.
So, from the receiver side, I don't have a problem with the
"treewalking" - whether it stays or goes. I don't see it's
existence as
the huge problem that others do but if it disappeared tomorrow this
would not destroy the essence of ADSP (it would just increase it's
deployment complexity).
It would increase deployment complexity for senders.
It would decrease deployment complexity for receivers.
Given that senders seem to be those who want to get this deployed,
and so are motivated to do so even if doing so is complex, while
receivers are more ambivalent then removing this feature seems
a reasonable idea.
It's been pointed out to me that I've confused this "treewalking"
discussion by forgetting that this thread is not discussing the
NXDOMAIN
issue. I have done this and I'm sorry about that. I view the
NXDOMAIN
check as essential since it is impossible for domain administrators to
deploy ADSP records for sub-domains that do not exist.
If the goals of ADSP are what I'm guessing they are, +1.
Cheers,
Steve
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html