Barry: >> 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.
As Frank points out, that's not what the draft says. The draft says that you can pick *any* record. The purpose is simply to determine whether the domain exists. The argument is semantically different, particularly when you discuss this in terms of the recommended query, an MX record. The worst you can say is that there is an interdependency between the deployment of MX records and ADSP records in the very same domain. The only reason you have to do the query is because of the additional labels applied. If you want to get away from this you need to use a new RR. Eliot _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
