[ietf-dkim] New Issue: protecting a domain name vs. protecting a domain tree

[Dave Crocker]

Eliot Lear wrote:
> Dave,
>> I'll repeat that distinction:  The current draft does not deal with exact-name 
>> vs. sub-tree issues as an explicit point of distinction; it has bits of each 
>> scattered around.  As such, the specification is, at best, confusing on the 
>> distinction, nevermind incomplete on the tree construct.
> 
> Can you suggest wording?

Let me nip this in the bud:  No.

I believe the entire effort to do more than deal with an exact-match names is a 
mistake and that all component details that attempt to expand the scope should 
be removed from the specification.

So the "suggested wording" I would offer is to remove text from the 
specification, not add it.



>>       1. The cited thread shows a complete lack of anything one might call 
>> consensus.
> 
> That's because the consensus was formed at the meeting, as the minutes 
> and Jim's presentation shows.  Be sure to look at those too.

I seem to recall that decisions are not made at working group meetings.  They 
are made on the mailing list.

So I'd be curious for a citation on the mailing list where the consensus from 
the meeting was reviewed and confirmed.

d/

ps.  Yes, this is all painful.  It is also a good lesson about why being careful 
with process is particularly important for topics that are complex and poorly 
understood.

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net