I think your message contains two distinct issues:
On Aug 27, 2004, at 11:06 AM, Douglas Otis wrote:
The Protocol draft mandates a minimum of 10 DNS text script macro
evaluations. These scripts may reference any number of A, AAAA, MX,
PTR,
TXT, and SPF2 resource record types. ...
This seems to be a concern that the type of processing limits in the
draft are unsuitable for keeping the amount of DNS traffic down to a
reasonable level. Several other people (Wayne in particular) have
suggested other types of processing limits for the draft that would
more precisely limit DNS queries. Do you have a particular proposal in
mind?
The Protocol draft also allows for “open-ended” definitions by
appending
notation such as “+all” or “?all”
I think you are concerned here that the draft allows domains to publish
what you would argue are unsafe and detrimental records. Do you have a
specific proposal for changing the draft to address this issue?
Solution:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-otis-marid-mpr-00.txt
If your concerns are truly TECH-ERROR concerns with the protocol draft,
please suggest specific ways to fix them. If your concern is that the
draft is so broken that the working group should abandon it and proceed
with discussing your draft, then that is much more than a TECH-ERROR
issue. Perhaps it is a DEPLOY level issue, or perhaps a meta-level
issue to be brought up with the working group chairs.
- Mark
Mark Lentczner
http://www.ozonehouse.com/mark/
markl(_at_)glyphic(_dot_)com