Re: [domainrep] Review of: draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers-06

[Dave Crocker <[e-mail]>]

On 5/19/2013 8:32 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 8:11 PM, Dave Crocker <[e-mail]
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>     Should the query (http) and response (media-type) documents also be
>     cited explicitly?
>
>
> I think the media-type one is a decent candidate.  Transport is a
> totally separate matter so I think that should be omitted.

ack.





> also on common anti-abuse heuristics (in the particular case of
> "invalid-recipients").  I don't know of any work dedicated to
> identifying sources of excessive marketing mail, for example.

oh, it feels entirely practical.  as of now.  my point is about the 
likelihood of wanting to grow the list as experience develops.

and here i thought i was clear that it was meant as an example -- a 
hypothetical.  it was meant to be credible, but not intended to be added 
now.


> To the question of a dedicated sub-registry, I'm not sure it makes a
> difference unless different sub-registries will have different update
> rules (e.g., IETF Review vs. Designated Expert).  If that's not the
> case, then updating either a master registry or a sub-registry invokes
> the same procedure, so the answer to your suggestion reduces to a matter
> of organization of the tables with IANA.

The alternative could be a flat registry, across applications, but that 
requires they not collide.  The benefit might be having sub-sets of 
profiles share some labels.

d/


-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net