For the record, I think this is a bad idea, as it forces more steps to
bringing us to closuNow we will have people posting issues on a
replacement draft. It also circumvents the issue tracking that has
taken place. I also find it remarkable, sad, and offensive to other
authors that a co-author of the working group draft couldn't get alone
either with his fellow authors or use the working group process to
propose changes he would like, but instead went backroom dealing.
In addition:
The major changes since -02 are:
* change name to ADSP
* take out the tree walk
There never was a tree walk. You know this, and your and others'
repeated use of this term has been misleading, and perhaps demonstrates
a fundamental misunderstanding that you yourself have.
* don't try to define our own existence check, but do make ADSP apply only
to domains that exist
AND this is not what the working group has agreed upon AND it is poor
protocol design to underspecify a behavior. In general this approach
that you folks are taking leads to interoperability problems and
inexplicable behavior. Taken to extreme one could simply define the
ADSP record format. What we are left with now is some vague hope that
people will be able to intuit anomalous behavior based on what software
is running on the recipient's end. We have experience with that in the
browser world. I don't care to recreate such a fiasco. Do you?
Eliot
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html