Eliot,
I am trying to be careful and specific in the things I am posting, here, and
you
and others need to be the same. My goal is to get discussion going. Yours
appears to be to stop it. Unfortunately, that has often been at the root of
problems in this working group.
Let me repeat the bottom line, once again:
There is nothing in the mailing list archive that demonstrates working
group rough consensus on the matter of extending ADSP's scope to include more
than a single, exact-match name.
The record *does* contain discussion about the problems with attempting
this expanded scope.
So please stop repeating broad references that turn out to be invalid or off
the
point. The substantiation for this assessment is in the remainder of this
message...
Eliot Lear wrote:
> 1402 and 1534 were specifically mentioned and discussed in Philly in
> Jim's presentation
> <http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/08mar/slides/dkim-0.pdf>.
"1402 Duplicate of 1534 Applicability of SSP to subdomains"
The above text contains the only reference to either of the documents in Jim's
slides. To the extent that it "proves" discussion took place, it is content
free.
And let's get very clear about something: I did not say there was no
discussion. So your "proving" that discussion took place in Philadelphia is
not
the issue.
> In fact,
> between the two they've been discussed at multiple meetings. We know
> this because the mechanism has changed over time and was presented as it
> changed.
Since I didn't claim otherwise, I'm not sure what your point is.
In any event, it would be nice to see documentation of the details in such
discussion and what it's conclusions were.
But most importantly we need to see documentation of consensus on the mailing
list.
You do not address this fundamental IETF requirement. And by "address" I mean
point to specific details that provide confirmation. Generic document
references don't help, particularly when it turns out that they do not prove
your point.
You can continue to traipse through the minutes of previous
> meetings (my own recollection and the minutes confirm
> <http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/07mar/minutes/dkim.txt> that is that
> the group spent time on this very issue in Prague).
1. For perhaps the third time: the minutes do not contains the strings 1402 or
1534. The only reference to "tree" is:
"Discussion focuses on subdomains, wildcards, tree-walking."
While, yes, it's entirely reasonable to take that as proof that something was
said, it does not provide any content. In particular, it doesn't even describe
the claimed conclusions.
> You did not
> object. My own recollection of the Prague discussion was that we
> specifically considered the positives and negatives of tree walking as
> well as a domain existence query, but perhaps the audio i lying around
> if you want to go to more detail.
Concerns about sub-tree details have been expressed repeatedly and broadly over
the months.
Whether I, in particular, voiced them in Philadelphia, seems to be a rule you
are attempting to enforce as meaningful and I can't guess why.
> Putting aside that procedural issue, the fundamental basis for your
> concern is that there are two independent systems that have no basis for
> interdependency.
I'm pretty sure that what I said does not strictly map to your characterization
of it.
Were you attempting to engage in constructive dialogue, rather than shut this
thread down, the question of its equivalence or difference strikes me as
potentially useful for improving everyone's understanding of the issue. So
it's
a shame that you have chosen to take such an adversarial stance.
> But your premise is false, and the issue is
> specifically raised in the current -03 draft, here:
Qouting an entire passage always feels comforting. However I do not see which
bits of text are on point or how. To the extent that your own comment is meant
to clarify this:
> No A record required, as Frank and I mentioned earlier.
my constantly referring to A record probably is, indeed, distracting. I'm
happy
to substitute all of my references to A with NXDOMAIN. I believe it does not
change any of the technical, administrative or operational concerns I raised.
> Perhaps I have missed some text that you are referring to. Could you
> correct me?
I don't understand what you are asking for. Text that says what?
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
