Subject: RE: [Asrg] Update on Querying IADB

From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 05:36:11 -0800

I agree with Yakov here, the A record convention is widely used it has
become a defacto extension to the specs. But the data being exchanged is
essentially binary in nature.

Anne's proposal strikes me as trying to use the A record to do far too much.
Once you start to try to move that amount of data it would be better to move
to using the TXT record or get a whole new RR defined. As long as the
overall record is shorter than 512 bytes there is no impact on performance.

This has another concrete benefit, the need for ad-hoc extensions of the
code set as new accrediting agencies appear goes away. 

The big difference between Anne's approach and mine is that I am proposing
that the accreditation data be separated into two parts, the accreditations
themselves and a single master record that describes the accreditation
service.

This ties in with what I think would be the data structures that filters
would build up. Each accreditation service being tracked would be
represented by some sort of master record that described the current
evaluation of the service. The description provided by the service would
provide part of that record, measurements of the performance of the service
would then be added in.

		Phil

_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg

---

From: "Anne P. Mitchell, Esq." <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 09:45:30 -0800

> overall record is shorter than 512 bytes there is no impact on 

I'm not here to debate merits (and certainly not to argue :-) );  I do 
just want to point out that first, the codes that IADB uses are not a 
'proposal' - this is an active,  live accreditation database, presently 
online, and being used to help ISPs and spam filters make email 
acceptance, delivery, and processing decisions for more than 30million 
email boxes, and the number is growing every day.

Second, the proposal which *is* on the table is not ISIPP's, and 
certainly not mine. :-)  It is Craig Hughes'.

Anne

---

From: "Anne P. Mitchell, Esq." <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 09:52:36 -0800

> We are not attacking your proposal per se,

Yakov, I know you aren't, and I wasn't feeling attacked, but *thank 
you* for saying that!

> rather we are discussing the need for possibly making a single 
> Internet standard for this type of stuff with your system and SORBS's 
> codes as an example.
>
>

That's precisely what Craig's proposal is.  You can read that at:

http://www.rungie.com/wiki/VouchListSpec

Anne

---

From: Yakov Shafranovich <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 12:49:32 -0500

> certainly not mine. :-)  It is Craig Hughes'.

Anne,

We are not attacking your proposal per se, rather we are discussing the 
need for possibly making a single Internet standard for this type of 
stuff with your system and SORBS's codes as an example.

As for Craig, I'll drop him a line.

Yakov

---

From: Yakov Shafranovich <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 12:43:07 -0500

> overall record is shorter than 512 bytes there is no impact on performance.

This issue is not limited to IADB, rather there are existing blacklists 
as well such as SORBS that are extending the original DNSBL protocol to 
do extra stuff. All of this can benefit from standards.

> provide part of that record, measurements of the performance of the service

Do you think that both parts need to be standardized?

Yakov