Subject: [domainrep] Comments on -media-type-00

From: Dave CROCKER <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 15:49:40 -0700

On the current -media-type-00 document:

1. Same concern about forward references as my first comment in the -model 
document, just sent.  We should avoid redundancy and forward pointers.

2. I suggest that the DNS response be modeled as a subset of this more general 
media-type, so that one can obtain that kind of good/bad simple information 
through the same mechanism as the more extensive information.  Hence, the 
DNS-based mechanism becomes a kind of data profile, possibly with a different 
syntax.

    On review, I'm also not clear that this isn't already the same as what 
should be in a DNS response, in which case I'm not clear how the more extensive 
information that justified an HTTP mechanism is reported.

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2011 13:21:38 -0700

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Dave CROCKER
> Sent: Monday, September 12, 2011 3:50 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [domainrep] Comments on -media-type-00
> 
> 1. Same concern about forward references as my first comment in the - model

Agree (see other message).

> DNS-based mechanism becomes a kind of data profile, possibly with a different

Seems reasonable.

> information that justified an HTTP mechanism is reported.

If I understand what you're saying here, it's related to what I said in my other reply: The lightweight reply doesn't contain any of the meta-data about the reputation reply that qualifies what it's saying; there's a lot of implicit understanding about the meaning of the reply when using the lightweight method for which space is provisioned in the heavyweight version.