ietf-mxcomp
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: why we should not be ambiguous about receiver behaviour

2004-04-22 12:21:39

Andrew Newton wrote:


On Apr 22, 2004, at 8:49 AM, Yakov Shafranovich wrote:


I think that it is pretty clear (to me at least). When a sender publishes MARID records, there are two specific things the sender can choose from: either 2821 values or 2822 values (or both). The receiver is provided with two specific validation paths: one for 2821 and another for 2822. So it is not a free for all but rather we narrow things down to two very specific paths, both on the sender and receiver's parts.


Just a clarification, in case I misstated something (or don't understand something). I proposed that the sender does not specify the type of identity (2821 vs. 2822) in the qname or rdata. I think Greg did a pretty good job explaining the reasons for it. But to add to that: if the sender can choose 2821 and the receiver uses 2822, then the two have failed to communicate.


I assumed that what you are saying is the following:
1. Sender publishes MARID record.
2. Sender can either use 2821, 2822 or both.
3. Receiver will check 2821, if that does not verify then move on to 2822.

Yakov
-------
Yakov Shafranovich / asrg <at> shaftek.org
SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / research <at> solidmatrix.com
"And this too shall come to pass"
-------