Re: [dmarc-ietf] Request to accept a new I-D into the WG work items

2018-11-09 Thread John Levine
In article you write: >-=-=-=-=-=- > >John's document reminded me of how CAA records are done, They >push all the processing outside the DNS servers. >Like CAA, we should make the RRTYPE require no special resolver processing >and then we can get the RRTYPE fairly quickly to start. In my propos

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Request to accept a new I-D into the WG work items

2018-11-09 Thread John Levine
In article <20181109135829.horde.kt-9atgfd77p2otpu6pn...@andreasschulze.de>, A. Schulze wrote: > When evaluating "www.foo.example.com", the first query would be to > "www.foo.example._bound.com". If the reply to this is "BOUND 0 0 > com", then the second query would go to >

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Request to accept a new I-D into the WG work items

2018-11-09 Thread Hector Santos
On 11/8/2018 1:19 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 3:53 PM Alessandro Vesely mailto:ves...@tana.it>> wrote: > and maybe it can solve the "PSL problem" if we can constrain the problem > space to just the DMARC issues instead of recreating the > DBOUND-solve-for-a

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Request to accept a new I-D into the WG work items

2018-11-09 Thread A. Schulze
John Levine: https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-levine-dbound-dns-01.txt That is fine. I thought it was pretty straightforward, too. I read the document. It's clear and simple. one comment: When evaluating "www.foo.example.com", the first query would be to "www.foo.examp

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Request to accept a new I-D into the WG work items

2018-11-09 Thread Alessandro Vesely
On Fri 09/Nov/2018 02:05:04 +0100 Scott Kitterman wrote: > On November 8, 2018 6:19:38 PM UTC, "Murray S. Kucherawy" wrote: >> On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 3:53 PM Alessandro Vesely wrote: >>> >>> This problem is simpler than DBOUND. >>> >> >> Sure, the DMARC case is half of what DBOUND tried to tackle.

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Request to accept a new I-D into the WG work items

2018-11-09 Thread Tim Wicinski
John's document reminded me of how CAA records are done, They push all the processing outside the DNS servers. Like CAA, we should make the RRTYPE require no special resolver processing and then we can get the RRTYPE fairly quickly to start. On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 5:12 AM John Levine wrote: >

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Request to accept a new I-D into the WG work items

2018-11-09 Thread John Levine
In article you write: >-=-=-=-=-=- > >I dug up John's old DBOUND draft to refresh myself and it's nice and >straightforward. I could not find if John shard the link >so here it is: > >https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-levine-dbound-dns-01.txt > >(hope that is OK John) That is fine. I thoug

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Request to accept a new I-D into the WG work items

2018-11-09 Thread Tim Wicinski
I dug up John's old DBOUND draft to refresh myself and it's nice and straightforward. I could not find if John shard the link so here it is: https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-levine-dbound-dns-01.txt (hope that is OK John) t\m On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 8:06 PM Scott Kitterman wrote: > > >