Eliot Lear wrote: > As a matter of fact the way the issue was resolved was through Jim > Fenton's presentation at the last IETF, and not so much through online > discussion.
OK. So I have now also reviewed: 1. Issue 1534 and its associated thread: <https://rt.psg.com/Ticket/Display.html?id=1534> 2. Minutes from Philadelphia 3. Jim Fenton's slides from Phili 4. The mailing list archive since Philadelphia What I find is absolutely nothing that deals with any of the points I raised. And by "deals with" I mean contains substance. Certainly the thread associated with 1534 shows no consensus and not much focus. Jim's slide have nothing on the topic, other than a listing of one of the two relevant Issues, and the Phili minutes do not make mention of this issue at all. And I find nothing in the mailing list archive that discusses it. Since it is not possible to prove a negative, I'm going to again have to ask that those asserting that this matter was discussed and resolved need to document it. And I mean point to concrete materials that confirm the claim, in both referenced Issues, that the matter was resolved. As for the very reasonable requests that I clarify how the issue I am raising is different from the two cited Issues, here's my best effort: 1. There has been no requirement stated, carefully discussed, and clearly resolved, that ADSP must deal with a sub-tree or anything other than a single domain name. What seems to have happened, for some, is a de facto assumption that it is requires. However it is not in the charter and it is not in the requirements. No mailing list discussion (and I will claim no face2face meeting) has discussed this requirement carefully and to resolution. 2. There is a difference between specifying component mechanisms, versus discussing concepts and approaches that motivate those mechanisms. The current specification contains no clear statement of what it is trying to do, with respect to covering implicit or subordinate (or superior) names. 3. The DNS does not permit covering multiple names competently, for uses such as ADSP is attempting. Any effort by ADSP to compensate for this deficiency must be, at best, partial and probably also experimental. Previous working group discussions in this area -- including those cited as Issue 1402 and Issue 1534 -- have at most mentioned the higher level issues of trying to covering more than a single domain name. However they have not discussed the conceptual distinction, nor have they discussed or resolved the requirement, nor have they resolved basic technical limitations. If someone needs more explanation that distinguishes this Issue that I am raising and what has come before, they need to provide some detail. > That's because the consensus was formed at the meeting, as the minutes > and Jim's presentation shows. Be sure to look at those too. Which of his slides shows this? d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html