-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Scott Kitterman
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2012 9:02 AM
To: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-marf-spf-reporting-08.txt> (SPF
Authentication Failure Reporting using the Abuse Report Format) to
Proposed Standard
On Thursday, March 01, 2012 07:14:20 PM Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
In Section 3:
"There exist cases in which a domain name owner employing [SPF] for
announcing sending practices may want to know when messages are
received via unauthorized routing."
I suggest not using the term "domain name owner" to side-step the
question of domain "ownership".
Would "ADMD" and an informative reference to RFC5598 be more
appropriate?
I think it wouldn't. As I read 5598, ADMD is the provider of services.
It's an MTA operator (RFC5598, 2.2.1), but basically the term is used to
indicate a separate organization that might own one or more domains. Google,
for example, owns gmail.com and google.com (and googlers.com now), but that's
all one ADMD. This is how the term is used in several other documents. It's
obvious that this is the ADMD that will be the one setting SPF (or any) policy
for mail use with respect to those domains, regardless of who actually handles
the mail.
Domain owners is the term used in RFC 4408 (see paragraph 1, introduction).
I'm not sure what question of domain ownership we're trying to side
step, but the term seems to me to be both literally correct and the
same terminology already in use in related documents (also, I might
add) a term no one has suggested should be changed in SPFbis).
I don't feel strongly about changing to ADMD except inasmuch as I suspect it
might resolve the comment and is a more commonly used term. I'm actually fine
with "domain owner" because that's also an implicit property of the ADMD.
-MSK
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf