Admitting up-front I'm only somewhat current on the ADSP debates: I'm not clear yet on what impact this will have, but now I'm aware of at least two large-scale DKIM implementors who fully intend to make a DNS tree walk of at least one level to determine if a parent domain has a published policy rather than expecting every installation to publish a policy record for every name it might want to protect.
Given that, I'd much rather see the ADSP spec this WG produces give guidance about how to do so properly, even (perhaps especially) if we don't like the idea, rather than appearing to discard, discourage, or simply ignore the concept. I'd really like to avoid creating a split between the theory of ADSP and the practise of ADSP if we can avoid it. I feel that unfortunate result would cripple both camps. _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
