ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] The challenge of an 'nxdomain' straw poll

2008-05-24 15:46:15
1. Make a domain 'validity' test mandatory.
2. Make a 'validity' test optional (SHOULD vs. MAY)
3. Remove a 'validity' test

'Validity' is your term.  The rest of us are debating existence in DNS.

Basically, the industry does not have a solid, de facto NXDomain
standard.

Since at least 1987 DNS standards have described NXDOMAIN completely and 
they tell us it's purpose and meaning as well as when and how we might 
expect to receive it.  This is good enough for me at least.

If this working group insists on defining a single, definitive test,
then it is running some risks with industry adoption, since we are
attempting to constrain existing practice.

How could anyone credibly attempt to constrain existing practice on the 
grounds that "Well now, you know, ADSP doesn't do it that way."  So 
what?  What ADSP defines for ADSP applies only to ADSP.

It also seems likely that the more definitively the working group attempts to 
specify (standardize) this particular test, the more it will be subject to 
review by the larger Internet email technical community, for architectural 
impact.  But, of course, that's just my own opinion.

I guess this is meant to threaten the WG's work effort with something 
akin to a tax audit.

-- 
Arvel


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

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