Can we just park the "was consensus reached/documented" aspect of this thread for a couple of days? I'll go back through the archive and see if the ball was dropped (by Barry and I) or not. But that'll take a day or two.
S. Dave Crocker wrote: > 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/ _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
