[ietf-dkim] New Issue: protecting a domain name vs. protecting a domain tree
dhc at dcrocker.net
Mon Apr 7 11:45:20 PDT 2008
Eliot Lear wrote:
>> 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
> 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.
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
More information about the ietf-dkim