The draft is in the repository, it was posted to the DNSEXT list in June.
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hallambaker-dkimpolicy-00.txt
This option has been raised repeatedly on the DNSEXT list. Annother more
general draft was circulated a year earlier.
By the way where are the drafts proposing the other options in choices?
-----Original Message-----
From: Harald Alvestrand [mailto:harald(_at_)alvestrand(_dot_)no]
Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 3:27 AM
To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip; Olaf M. Kolkman
Cc: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: RE: SRV records considered dubious
--On 23. november 2006 08:18 -0800 "Hallam-Baker, Phillip"
<pbaker(_at_)verisign(_dot_)com> wrote:
The draft is incomplete. It does not review all the
technical options.
These were raised on the DNSEXT list months ago.
Where's the draft?
If you want there to be consensus on a draft then it has to put all
the options fairly.
If you want to refer to the draft as an authority you have
to consider
all the options.
Where's the draft? (of the options, not of -dns-choices)
I also do not agree that the document should not proceed without
addressing the pointer mechanism. The document is not of the type
that specifies new solutions, it documents tradeoffs. If
your pointer
mechanism would be more than 'mail-ware' (i.e. had
sufficient review
and consensus) then it could have been part of the
equation. I think
that its to late for that.
How is it going to have review if the editors refuse to consider it?
Where's the draft?
Something that is not documented even as an internet-draft
cannot be seriously considered in a review of current options
line -choices.
Harald
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf