Hector Santos wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Fenton" <fenton(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com>
To: <ietf-dkim(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org>
- There is only a small deployment of SSP records at this point
- There are good reasons for going to a new RR
- Unlike key records, there's no way to advertise whether to do a TXT or
"new RR" query for SSP
it seems like there are good reasons to accelerate the definition and
adoption a new RR for SSP. In its most terse form, the "practices"
could mostly be defined as a number of independent, one-bit values. In
any case, spending a lot of time on a definition that assumes TXT
records doesn't seem productive.
During MARID, it is was my understanding that non-active directory
versions of Microsoft DNS servers do no support the addition of new RR
records and during MARID this was one primary reason for sticking with TXT
(besides its obvious simplicity).
Is this correct? If so, it is important?
This is all hearsay, but what I hear is that this problem was corrected
in SP2.
-Jim
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html