On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 7:51 AM, Alessandro Vesely <ves...@tana.it> wrote:
> I oppose to the change as proposed, and support the explanation called > for by John Klensin instead. Two arguments: > > 1) The harm Barry exemplifies in the request --incompatibility with > mailing list posting-- is going to be a feature of at least one > of the other ways addressing that problem. Indeed, "those who > don't know history are destined to repeat it", and the explanation > is needed to make history known. > Ample discussion of the problems exists in RFCs, most notably RFC 6377. A simple solution to your concern would be to modify the writeup to reference what's written there. John Klensin's proposal, however, is to write up and publish a short RFC that makes the state change and possibly the "Historic" request, so that the two things (status change and pointers to details) are in one, more obvious, place. > > 2) A possible fix for ADSP is explained by John Levine himself: > http://www.mail-archive.com/ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org/msg16969.html > I'm not proposing to mention it along with the explanation, but > fixing is not the same as moving to historic. It seems that it > is just a part of RFC 5617, DNS records, that we want to move. > > > To me, that post says ADSP is best implemented as a locally-configured list of domains for which ADSP should be enforced. That may be the better solution, but then there's no protocol for the IETF to document, because nothing is interoperating. I don't believe this is an argument for prolonging ADSP itself. -MSK
