> Rather than create a vague definition of "existence" why not make a > precise definition but make it optional. A verify MAY do an existence > test and if they do so, it will be done as follows...
I think an _optional_ existence check actually creates the very problem you're talking about - "a domain advertising ADSP to have no clue as to what verifiers will do". > Surely a technical spec that guarantees a random result is not a good > spec. If the existence check is rendered optional then a random result is exactly what we'll get. You'll have two different implementations of the same spec, one doing the existence check, and one not, both able to legitimately claim spec compliance, yet each producing a different algorithmic result for the same input. Arvel _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html