(replying again, with a little more background)
Ted Hardie <hardie(_at_)qualcomm(_dot_)com> wrote:
I'd say the broad question is "What are the semantics that this record
needs to convey" and the first key question is "What *identity* is it
that needs to be authorized".
From the LMAP discussion document:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-irtf-asrg-lmap-discussion-00.txt
To answer what identity is it that needs to be authorized:
#---
LMAP is based on two concepts: publication of authentication
data by a domain, and application of that data by a recipient
MTA. The combination of these concepts permits SMTP
recipients to establish more reliably whether mail putatively
from a domain is actually from that domain and that there is a
responsible contact in case of questions or problems with the
domain's mail.
The data published by a domain includes statements as to which
IP's are permitted to originate mail from the domain in SMTP
EHLO/HELO and MAIL FROM.
#---
The identity which needs to be authorized is an MTAs self-proclaimed
association with a domain. That is, the MTA is claiming that it has
an identity which is rooted in a domain. We can therefore ask the
domain if that statement is true. If the identity appears to be
valid, then we can assume that the claim of identity is true, and that
MTA is authorized to claim that relationship.
I believe that the LMAP discussion document would be appropriate as
a WG item, because it summarises many of the issues surrounding the
proposed authorization process. These issues should be documented as
part of the WG process, but the issues are independent of the
technical specification of the protocols, or the syntax of the
records. Instead, the document explains in detail why the protocol
choice was made, and it's benefits and limitations.
I'm prepared to update the document to address any WG concerns, and
to submit it for consideration as a WG item.
Alan DeKok.