Steve Atkins wrote:
On Apr 30, 2008, at 11:40 AM, Arvel Hathcock wrote:
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.
That's true, but you also need to consider the nature and degree of
deployment complexity required.
Senders who want full coverage would need to either add new ADSP records
for all their hosts or deploy new (and, as far as I know, currently
nonexistent) DNS tools to automatically publish ADSP records for all of
their hosts.
Otherwise, eceivers would need to deploy an ADSP implementation that
queries the parent domain, as currently described in SSP-03. Other than
that, they don't need to do anything special.
-Jim
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html