Dave Crocker wrote:
... New insight, changed conditions, or the like.
What has changed, Eliot?
d/
John (and others - to be fair) have repeatedly mischaracterized as a
tree walk a parent lookup. The two are very different. It is clear to
me that confusion has ensued over precisely that point. I stated this
to John and then he repeated the false assertion. Perhaps he thinks
it's a small point - it is not. John is correct to point out that some
time ago there WAS a tree walk, but that has been gone for - well, quite
some time.
Also, I specifically raised two issues that were not raised before.
To reiterate, the change the group has made introduces a strong
dependency for enterprises on the DNS infrastructure in two separate
ways. It requires either those who want to authorize mail for
provisioned hosts or those who want to prohibit mail from provisioned
hosts to create a record for each host (either way) and the practical
result is a dependency, therefore, on DNS provisioning infrastructure.
Now it is true that mail systems already have a similar dependency.
Here, however, because the dependency is created for even those hosts
that are NOT authorized, the dependency is for a subsystem that is
otherwise unrelated to a host's function (a higher crime IMHO).
Eliot
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html