Re: [apps-discuss] Feedback on draft-moonesamy-rfc2369bis-01 and draft-moonesamy-rfc2919bis-01

[S Moonesamy <[e-mail]>]

At 02:54 09-01-2012, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
>If it doesn't have to be a real DNS name, the reason to treat
>".invalid" as a special case becomes rather obscure.

It's to avoid localhost.com, etc.

>So there is an implied "if you don't know what a nested list is, you
>may safely skip this section."

If you are not implementing nested list, you can skip the section.

>Since you are somewhat diluting the spec, you might as well have
>merged it with 2369bis.  Why not?

2369bis is more about list commands whereas 2919bis is about list 
identifiers.  Keeping the them as two separate documents makes it 
easier to compare changes.

>Whazzat?  I thought DNS was developed for civilian purposes only...

Some parts of DNS are about policy.

   "Several people expressed considerable scepticism about the
    chances of success in response to domain name registry issues."

>In any case, I'd substitute "recommended" with either "RECOMMENDED" or
>a synonym like "suggested", in the third line below:
>
>    While it is perfectly acceptable for a List Identifier to be
>    completely independent of the domain name of the host machine
>    servicing the mailing list, it is recommended that the owner of a
>    mailing list avoids generating List Identifiers in any domain name
>    space for which they do not have authority.

Ok.

>Quite the opposite way around:  It is the EU (or Canada) who will pay
>you a consultancy when they'll need to legally nail who is in control
>of a list's operations :^)

I'll use that as the rationale for the work. :-)

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

P.S. As all messages from this mailing list are DKIM signed, you can 
use some heuristics to detect misuse of the list-id.