Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] I-D.kucherawy-dkim-reporting

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:53:57 -0700 (PDT)

> Admittedly I was generally frustrated, and abused your draft to whine. 
> OTOH if you somehow missed those months to come to the ADSP decision, 
> and also propose to discuss parent domain again, that's also not very 
> encouraging.

Your logic is faulty.  The fact that I chose to participate in only a 
limited way (look at the archives; I voted when asked) doesn't mean I 
"somehow missed" the decision.

And I'm not pushing to re-open the topic.  I'm quite aware of the 
consensus result.  I'm trying to make the working group aware of possibly 
influential dissent outside of the working group.  There is an important 
opportunity to provide guidance about the matter based on the working 
group's protracted discussions, one which I don't believe should be so 
trivially dismissed.

But if you don't care, then I'd bet they won't either.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html

---

From: "Frank Ellermann" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 23:34:30 +0200

Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
 
> I'm trying to make the working group aware of possibly influential
> dissent outside of the working group.

And how is that supposed to work ?  Some persons known only to you
allegedly prefer the ssp-03 algorithm and are possibly influential;
what next ?  There were tons of arguments in both directions, and
the arguments convincing folks coming to the same "no parent domain
magic" decision can be very different - I had "sitefinder" on my
list, and some bad pre-4408 memories with namedroppers flamewars.

Today I'd add the recent "public suffix list" debate.  So I've also
some possibly influential folks telling me again and again that DNS
is not designed for "property inheritance", and that DNS zones are
unrelated to "ADMD"-s.