Delete
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of MH Michael Hammer (5304) Sent: Thu 5/1/2008 11:59 AM To: Stephen Farrell; ietf-dkim Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] subdomain strawpoll Delete > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:ietf-dkim- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Stephen Farrell > Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2008 4:11 AM > To: ietf-dkim > Subject: [ietf-dkim] subdomain strawpoll > > > Folks, > > We don't seem to be converging on this on the list, though I > also think that the recent (and quite good) debate should > mean that a lot of folks can express informed opinions. > > So Barry & I would like to do a strawpoll to see if there is > in fact rough consensus one way or the other. > > Your question for this week is therefore: > > Should we keep or remove text below? > > (from 4.2.2 of draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-03, but please be sure you > check the context before expressing an opinion) > > 3. _Try Parent Domain._ The host MUST query DNS for a TXT record for > the immediate parent domain, prefixed with "_asp._domainkey." If > the result of this query is anything other than a "NOERROR" > response with a valid ASP record, the algorithm terminates with a > result indicating that no ASP record was present. If the ASP "t" > tag exists in the response and any of the flags is "s" > (indicating it does not apply to a subdomain), the algorithm also > terminates without finding an ASP record. Otherwise, use that > record. > > Please just answer "keep" or "remove" in this thread, and use a > different subject line for any discussion. I'll summarise results > back to the list in one week from today (after May 8th). > > Since 5016 section 4.2 does (though admittedly somewhat vaguely) > call for inclusion of the feature, we think a close call should > come down in favour of keeping it in. > > If the consensus is for removal, then we can separately discuss what, > if anything, should go into the security considerations section that > covers the issue. Actually, even keeping it in, we should probably > add some new sec. cons. text derived from the recent discussion, but > let's see if we've consensus first. > > Thanks, > Stephen & Barry. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > NOTE WELL: This list operates according to > http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
