Thank you John, Comments inline. Regards, Gustavo On 7/8/13 4:54 PM, "John R. Levine" <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
Regarding email, the current idea is that the NSs for URS locking provided by the URS provider, reply with MX 0 . when queried for the MX of a URS locked domain name.
That would help, but since MX 0 . is not formally standardized* there's some other stuff that would help more.
GL - There are several ideas floating around regarding the technical requirements of the URS provider, if you want to provide feedback, you can send it to the list or to me. We appreciate your feedback. The MX 0 . approach appears to be well supported in MTAs (even if not formal standardized) and should be easy to implement and maintain from the URS provider perspective.
If I may ask a meta-question, who's writing on this spec, and who's providing technical and security advice?
Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly
* - utterly by coincidence, I resuscitated a 2006 draft about it last week to see if the IETF application area wants to do something about it