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

[Dave Crocker]

Stephen Farrell wrote:
>> One interpretation of this point is that the presence of a DNS entry 
>> (that is, a 'failure' to get an NXDomain) might be meaningful, but the 
>> scope of its meaning is much broader than ADSP.  
> 
> I'm not following that. Can you give an example? Even if its partly
> speculative, it'd help me understand your point. (And in this case,
> I guess speculation as to future uses of DNS might be valid, since
> the current absence of entries is what we're proposing to use.)


DKIM and ADSP fit into a larger framework of filtering activities.  I hope there 
is nothing controversial about that assertion.

It means that there are many analyses and tests that are outside the scope of 
DKIM (and ADSP).

Some filtering engines query for an NXDOMAIN today, independent of DKIM or ADSP.

That's a pretty clear indication that its meaning and utility are not tied to ADSP.

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net