[ietf-dkim] requirement for one ADSP record per DNS entry is irrelevant

[John Levine]

>> You're just reasserting the same implausible claim.  This is part of the 
>> lookalike problem, and no amount of ADSP will solve that.
>
> And you're arguing that ADSP should solve everything,

It's not helpful to attribute statements to people that they didn't say. 
What I did say is that ADSP may be useful in deterring exact forgery. 
That's all it can do.  No amount of extra cruft will solve the lookalike 
problem.

> and by removing important functionality we will in fact solve nothing.

You keep saying that lookalike protection is "important".  Repeating an 
unpersuasive argument doesn't make it more persuasive.

> Perhaps there is a middle ground here for those who think this case is 
> important?  Can we not prohibit something that some believe will be 
> important?

Nothing's prohibiting you from producing and distributing better DNS 
management tools if you think DNS management is going to prevent ADSP 
usage.  ADSP is mostly for the protection of senders.  If they think it's 
sufficiently important, they'll deploy it.

In any event, the tree walk is gone.  We voted, your side lost.  Enough 
already.

R's,
John