On Jun 11, 2008, at 3:35 PM, Frank Ellermann wrote:
Douglas Otis wrote:
It seems ADSP should also suspend efforts in how to validate a
domain and move this to a separate draft.
STD 13 will do for existence, and when folks prefer a more
elaborated 2821bis check, the poll will tell us to adopt John's
proposal (some variant of MAY). The idea is again to avoid
pointless checks when receivers already have a better 2821bis
"nomailfqdn" result.
Disagree. Portions of John's draft should be moved to a separate SMTP
related draft. As it is now, John's draft will modify SMTP
interoperability and, as such, these sections specific to the email-
address domain should not be included within the ADSP draft. For ADSP
to avoid these interoperability issues, such as those related to RFC
2606, MS Exchange, NNTP, MUAs, et cetera, only the existence of an
ADSP record should be determined. ADSP should avoid introducing
requirements related specifically to the email-address domain. The
ADSP record is even located at a different domain. Checks made
against the email-address domain necessitates additional transactions
which are functionally independent of ADSP anyway. Email-address
domain transactions and their related status should be defined within
a separate draft, where sufficient time, testing, and appropriate
vetting is allowed to occur by an SMTP WG. After all, the goal is to
finish the ADSP, ASAP. : )
-Doug
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html