We need a tight and concise protocol with no MAY's and all
MUSTS and no crap that can be implemented in the fewest lines
of code possible and afford the most portability possible to
see that adoption, integration etc.. is as painless as
possible.
That would all be nice. And lots of optional behavior in a
protocol is, in fact, usually viewed as a negative.
Unfortunately, a standards activity is a social process that
entails developing group (rough) consensus. It is always easier
for a one person to develop compromise with themselves. Gaining
enough broad-based consensus to facilitate global adoption is a
very different matter.
At any rate, if you have concerns about DNS, per se, there are
other venues for discussing it. The point, here, is the
distinction between using an established, global, infrastructure
service, versus creating a new one.
I come from the line of thinking that we have a very unique
opportunity here. EVERYONE hates spam. The entire world
will get behind whatever it takes that will stop this
On the average, predictions about rapid, mass adoption prove to
me incorrect. Predicting human behavior is simply not subject
to guarantees.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
+1.408.246.8253
dcrocker(_at_)(_dot_)(_dot_)(_dot_)
brandenburg.com