ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] forward movement, please? (was RE: Are lookalike domains like parent domains?)

2008-04-30 15:04:35
This is where we are at present on the NXDOMAIN issue I believe but
others might have a different view.

That's my impression, as well.

What's the path towards settling this?

I propose that the side advocating maintaining the NXDOMAIN check as an 
actual algorithmic step agree to remove this from the algorithm 
description in favor of placement somewhere else.

I propose that the side advocating removal of the NXDOMAIN check agree 
to language which makes this step AT LEAST a SHOULD and preferably a MUST.

This is a completely reasonable and sensible way to close the issue IMO.

We are down to the bare-bones of what many of us are able to accept with 
regard to further fundamental changes.  Unbelievable compromise has 
already been made and no side is getting all of what they want.  We're 
now talking about trimming ADSP to the point of near uselessness. 
There's no more flesh we can carve from this pig and still make a sandwich.

Arvel


_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>