On Tue, Mar 28, 2006 at 08:51:59AM +0200, Eliot Lear allegedly wrote:
Mark,
My larger concern is this: it's important that we get the RR done in
time for the base so that we have the query rules done, stating that the
new RR should be preferred to TXT records.
Agreed. And, er, forgive my propensity to density, but I presume
you're suggesting that a separate doc adds risk because the timing may
not work out.
That concern is clearly valid. The trade-offs are that:
a) the base is kept simpler and more manageable
b) from a deployment perspective, we may be able to get the ball
rolling earlier on DNS s/w support
c) the DNS RR can progress without all the issues that will arise
with the base
d) a separate doc has considerable precedent. Eg, RFC821 does not
describe MX RRs. In fact most RRs as far as I can tell are described
in isolation from the application protocol.
e) some on this WG think that a new RR is a serious distraction and a
waste of time. De-coupling a new RR avoids their concerns.
I'm not in a position to judge any of these perspectives and none of
them strike me as compelling, but on the whole, if we diligently work
on an RR spec, which I promise to do, a separate doc seems to have
some merit.
Mark.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html