Re: design specifics --- the config label

Meng Weng Wong wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 03, 2003 at 11:56:38AM -0400, Alan DeKok wrote:
> | 
> |   It looks like there is significant overlap between the proposals in
> | terms of goals and limitations.  This means that we should quickly be
> | able to come up with a unified proposal.
> | 
> |   I would like to have a rough draft of a unified proposal by the end
> | of next week.
> 
> Does anyone have an objection to doing the config label?
> 
> The thing that returns "permit:mx; permit:spf; permit:host=foobar.com;
> permit:cidr=special-list.foobar.com; deny:default".
> 
> If not, shall we use config._smtp_client.DOMAIN label or something else?
> 
> Any comments on the syntax of the above?
> 

I would like you guys to consider if this "config label" can be 
considered a part of a larger consent protocol. If yes, then you might 
consider including a section similar to section 1.2 in the CRI proposal 
(see http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-irtf-asrg-cri-00.txt).