ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

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

2008-05-01 15:34:01
Dave Crocker wrote:
Arvel Hathcock wrote:
  
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.
    


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).

2. Modifies SMTP.  (Yes, really.)
  

This is a reason that we shouldn't reference a domain existence check in 
a separate document (if one indeed exists).  A separate description is 
likely to be interpreted in a way that modifies SMTP, while the 
description in ADSP simply returns the ADSP result, "the domain does not 
exist."  The specification is carefully non-normative what to do in this 
case, and therefore does not modify SMTP.
Having non-normative text that describes it serves to promote the idea but 
not 
couple it with the fate of ADSP.
  

Having the ADSP result depend on non-normative language in this case 
does not meet the bar of interoperability that we need to achieve.  
Making it non-normative means that two spec-compliant implementations of 
ADSP would return completely different results for non-existent domains.

-Jim


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