ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

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

2008-04-30 16:51:34
So, I take this as a "no" to the compromise proposal (at least from one 
person).  That's too bad.

Having the ADSP specification include normative text that calls for 
validating the From field domain name does two things:

1. Couples an entirely separate and more generally useful mechanism 
(checking domain name validity) to one that is considerably more limited 
(ADSP).

I believe that a normative reference would require that the result of an 
already widespread practice be part of an ADSP evaluation.  Where the 
practice is not already extant, claimed compliance with ADSP could 
require it.  That's all.

2. Modifies SMTP.  (Yes, really.)

I don't understand, please explain.  This sounds new.

Having non-normative text that describes it serves to promote the idea 
but not couple it with the fate of ADSP.

Non-normative language leaves ADSP deployers in the dark about whether 
the protocol can be relied on because success would depend upon an 
optional NXDOMAIN check that some have, some don't, and none need 
perform.  Since we know the protocol needs this in order to avoid being 
trivially defeated and since it has already been acknowledged as a 
common practice it seems inexcusable for an engineering team to make it 
an optional thing or to simply "promote the idea."

Perhaps we could get some other people to weigh in on this matter.

Arvel




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

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