Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] New issue: Upward query vs. wildcard publication

From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 13:55:29 -0700

And its not just packages, the information is frequently not visible because there is a resolver in the way.

Sent from my GoodLink Wireless Handheld (www.good.com)

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Dave Crocker [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent:	Friday, April 20, 2007 08:39 AM Pacific Standard Time
To:	Michael Thomas
Cc:	DKIM List
Subject:	Re: [ietf-dkim] New issue:  Upward query vs. wildcard publication

> I just read both of these and I don't see how it contradicts anything
> I've proposed. If the authority of a domain is a parent to the current
> domain, it seems rather pointless to query all of the intermediate
> labels in a treewalk. In this particular case, keeping query complexity
> down is a lot more important than lots and lots and lots of unneeded
> flexibility.

You want user-visible information to be based on zone boundaries, 
although zone boundaries are not defined as a user-visible construct.

The real-world functional problems with this have already been 
explained, by others.

What I am trying to make clear is that the fact that some packages might 
give access to this information, it is nonetheless inappropriate for a 
user-visible function to be based on access to zone boundary information.

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html