Subject: [ietf-dkim] [psg.com #1572] [Comment] protecting a domain name vs. protecting a domain tree

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2008 08:49:46 +0000

https://rt.psg.com:443/Ticket/Display.html?id=1572
This is a comment.  It is not sent to the Requestor(s):

Eliot Lear said the following:
> > By my recollection, 
> > this topic alone has been discussed at at least two - and possibly
three 
> > - working group meetings.  Please advise.

This topic has definitely been discussed a number of times.  And Stephen 
and I have discussed Dave's note from today, and think it's appropriate 
to continue the discussion a bit.  We need to keep it focused and come 
to a clear conclusion -- the problem is that we don't think we really 
have agreement on this question.

The particular point in Dave's note that troubles me, and that I don't 
think we have agreement on, is his third one:

> > 3.  At least one of the sub-tree mechanisms is attempting to glean
information 
> > from the absence of publisher action.  Let me explain:
...
>> >>          c) Checking for the presence of an A record is intended
to try tell you 
>> >> something in the absence of an explicit action by the domain
owner.  That's it's 
>> >> flaw: It is intuiting ADSP information from non-ADSP action.
>> >>
>> >>      While there is nothing wrong with checking the A record, it's
semantics 
>> >> have literally nothing (directly) to do with ADSP.

I agree with that assessment, but more importantly, I think the working 
group doesn't yet agree on whether he's right or not.  So let's clear 
this up with a focused discussion that gets one of the following results:
* We have consensus that ADSP should explicitly say that in the absence 
of an ADSP record you have no information, and you treat the message as 
you did before DKIM/ADSP existed.  Any other processing might be 
proposed as an extension, in another document.
* We have consensus that there IS a well-defined process that we 
recommend following in the absence of an ADSP record, and that having 
the ADSP document define this is within scope for the base document.

Yes, this discussion is in scope for now.  Let's keep the discussion on 
track, and resolve this quickly.

Barry, as DKIM working group chair
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html

_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html