I have to agree 100% here Philip.
My recollection of the issue was related to Active Directory (AD)visions
versus the non-Active Directory versions. For example, we don't use AD, so
this might be an issue for us. I believe there were some example shown
where Windows DNS IP Helper API (iphlpapi.dll) and/or it was not available
on all platforms. But I didn't remember the specifics.
Anyway, I brought it up because last week you did point it out and it seemed
this critical point was missed.
But I have a few more bald spots on my head understanding why it is being
discussed when we can't even get over the hump with Mike's compatibility
concerns. :-) Doesn't make sense.
--
Hector Santos, Santronics Software, Inc.
http://www.santronics.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker(_at_)verisign(_dot_)com>
The statement made by Microsoft was that none of the Microsoft DNS servers
have the ability to publish new RRs without breaking the administration
model completely. In particular they have no administration tool for
entering the RRs and no way to save them out.
It is possible to enter RR values into the database by non standard
administration interfaces but not by a method that survives a reboot.
Given the amount of disinformation and the refusal of the DNS group to
accept the statements made by Microsoft then I am not too inclined to
accept
heresay statements on the subject now.
For deployment of a new RR to be possible it must be supported to
production
quality for the platform concerned. On the windows platform that means
that
it has to be possible to enter the RR through the standard administrative
interface.
There are a few changes in Windows 2003 R2. In particular the server can
be
configured to allow through DNSSEC records from other DNS servers and to
accept zone transfers for unsupported records. I am unable to find a
description of how to enter an unsupported RR through either the command
line or GUI.
On the plus size the default UDP packet size is 1260 bytes, not 512. If we
are all so confident that new RRs will work then why does everyone (Olafur
included) pay such strict attention to this particular limit?
I think that what we are seeing here is more wishful thinking by people
who
are not going to be damaged by the consequences. If they can get us to
make
DKIM dependent on deployment of the infrastructure necessary to support
new
RRs then they don't have to do that job.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html