IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [apps-discuss] APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-marf-dkim-reporting-15

Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> Fri, 16 March 2012 14:27 UTC

Return-Path: <dhc@dcrocker.net>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D24521F8649; Fri, 16 Mar 2012 07:27:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.606
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.606 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.007, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Z6TTAyIzXiII; Fri, 16 Mar 2012 07:27:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6356321F85DD; Fri, 16 Mar 2012 07:27:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.11] (adsl-67-127-58-62.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net [67.127.58.62]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q2GERGsb003154 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 16 Mar 2012 07:27:21 -0700
Message-ID: <4F634DA6.1050203@dcrocker.net>
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2012 07:26:46 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:10.0.2) Gecko/20120216 Thunderbird/10.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Aaron Stone <aaron@serendipity.cx>
References: <CAEdAYKXXpW2UnwOuNGO=VG9M__zuM4hk4jjLYKzbqzORHch++Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAEdAYKXXpW2UnwOuNGO=VG9M__zuM4hk4jjLYKzbqzORHch++Q@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]); Fri, 16 Mar 2012 07:27:22 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, apps-discuss@ietf.org, draft-ietf-marf-dkim-reporting.all@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-marf-dkim-reporting-15
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2012 14:27:23 -0000

On 3/16/2012 4:11 AM, Aaron Stone wrote:
> === Major Issues:
>
> Should the well-known domain components "_report._domainkey" be
> registered with IANA?
> (Hmm, I don't see any such registry. In that case, there is an edit
> below suggesting text to more clearly state a MUST around this domain
> record name.)


Currently, every new use of a reserved, underscore-based domain name is creating 
its own registry for the name(s).  So far, there are roughly 20.

I've twice proposed creating a single, consolidated registry for this.  The 
first proposal, in 2006, was incomplete.

The recent version seems complete to me, but the dnsop working group produced no 
responses when I queried it for feedback repeatedly:

    http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-crocker-dns-attrleaf-06

We still need the registry, as you note.

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email