The mnemonic of MON (Mail Originating Network) or MRN (Mail Receiving
Network) used by Frank and Keith provide clarity regarding the role of
the entity.
1. It's clear that we can play a name game over this particular choice forever.
Please note that I've iterated through 3 or so versions. The current proposed
term is based on watching the language that I've been seeing in the wild and
suggesting a term that matches that spirit.
2. As for MON/MRN, I'll note that they contain no obvious semantics that pertain
to their primary purpose, namely reference to trust/administration boundaries.
In addition, the word "network" is likely to get completely confused with it's
lower-layer usage; and that reference is quite different from the trust
boundaries of an ADMD. Elsewhat in the arch document, the originator/recipient
refinement is annotated by prefacing the architectural reference with an "o" or
"r". That ought to suffice, here, too.
3. The document explains why the model needs to support more than 2
administrative constructs. For example, the presence of a trust boundary
between a customer's MUA and their ISP's MSA/MTA environment is important. It is
a distinction that affects a great deal of technical, administrative and
operational work throughout the Internet.
4. From what I can tell, some folks seem only interested in the one-hop model of
the open-Internet. While that is certainly a simplifying approach that could be
useful for some architectural discussions -- it it pretty much describes the
view of the Arpanet and early Internet, 25 years ago -- it simply does not
capture enough of the real world of email complexity today, in my view.
To the extent that folks feel otherwise, it would help to see some explanation.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net