Re: [dbound] DBOUND and paths forward
Kurt Andersen <kurta@drkurt.com> Tue, 24 May 2016 04:01 UTC
Return-Path: <kurta@drkurt.com>
X-Original-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C229712D0A0 for <dbound@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 May 2016 21:01:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=drkurt.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zTOx8b_f-uf2 for <dbound@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 May 2016 21:01:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ig0-x230.google.com (mail-ig0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D7C7F12B05E for <dbound@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 May 2016 21:01:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ig0-x230.google.com with SMTP id fh2so4283652igd.1 for <dbound@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 May 2016 21:01:42 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=drkurt.com; s=20130612; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc; bh=/XQrgnz7ux/+RLmdYWQXxvo+42eqv6UU2FglBrob1QY=; b=OBnfj2L/EImFNDgTnO9FozAOa/r7p0hWr4qv21r6QAtxi1ZInFpfHC0imE5T9wpFmU aYwylzfTS20wCyVpgqoXbSploUoOK0vAAhQZ+JNgjT2Mdz+lYH+Dmf2HUssSq4BjZXxb 6pCxE91q7xkLjuqaRX7AOoSfWJIC3DZpFJAq0=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=/XQrgnz7ux/+RLmdYWQXxvo+42eqv6UU2FglBrob1QY=; b=ast99PfRKCpTQmzs1cP2j7YgnvSu3+bd/6w3RKKn75/pDX2yny2cQrBtHQIrvAvjnb yW1JYu8LyAKn4zW8jCgpWmPYR+oBwSFZR9F3fJfUIECo3i/lZQA/MxgI5Tz1AQfun1KP MgRTwhp8VHHgUvPGmZyBHHYx/JBEcTyOP4BW9aOL5l0GcQPHob+NfKRM17HwS3yq/1ES FySuIguIaYTK6I8dazCm4Il0wvRUMjOozx4jaeQrhHTHiEV1qHtF/yudCaWrWr+XhwlE KLLNnjJ//vX1/EFeV5biI4ktCqKlyFSl2/LqK5F5/m7CnizbxLHboKtQFtm+J1K138LB HKYA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FX06ePotB1n9nJh4JjXGOf0QLEPZXvoRBq98uj7kwsAJuTTqUW7+MQIlhPjiAbDk1TscZm3sTKE+ryGqA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.79.130 with SMTP id j2mr15912689igx.89.1464062502186; Mon, 23 May 2016 21:01:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.107.20.202 with HTTP; Mon, 23 May 2016 21:01:42 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20160524020912.54781.qmail@ary.lan>
References: <CAL0qLwbeWRLd8tF045xYn00FLH3Dm1u=DR3-Gjb7oot+GYEr6Q@mail.gmail.com> <20160524020912.54781.qmail@ary.lan>
Date: Mon, 23 May 2016 21:01:42 -0700
Message-ID: <CABuGu1p-WNJniEGx97mKLr8u1ims==PPzg6jcSpkjo71GFfrDQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Kurt Andersen <kurta@drkurt.com>
To: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e0112d0745f4e7205338e9d55"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dbound/Hf2bevkAMWGzWZ7YMKzg-YW9LYM>
Cc: Murray Kucherawy <superuser@gmail.com>, "dbound@ietf.org" <dbound@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dbound] DBOUND and paths forward
X-BeenThere: dbound@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: DNS tree bounds <dbound.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dbound>, <mailto:dbound-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dbound/>
List-Post: <mailto:dbound@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dbound-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dbound>, <mailto:dbound-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 04:01:45 -0000
On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 7:09 PM, John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote: > >With that in mind, your co-chairs propose that we abandon any grand > unified > >theory of domain boundary evaluation and focus only on this email use > >case. > > > >So, what say you all? > > Given that the realistic alternative is to do nothing at all, sure, why > not? > Let's see if we can get more mileage out of this approach - +1. --Kurt Andersen
- Re: [dbound] DBOUND and paths forward Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [dbound] DBOUND and paths forward Gervase Markham
- Re: [dbound] DBOUND and paths forward Hodges, Jeff
- [dbound] DBOUND and paths forward Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [dbound] DBOUND and paths forward John Levine
- Re: [dbound] DBOUND and paths forward HANSEN, TONY L
- Re: [dbound] DBOUND and paths forward Kurt Andersen
- Re: [dbound] DBOUND and paths forward Paul Hoffman
- Re: [dbound] DBOUND and paths forward Jiankang Yao
- Re: [dbound] DBOUND and paths forward Casey Deccio
- Re: [dbound] DBOUND and paths forward Murray S. Kucherawy