On Mon, 27 Mar 2006, Hector Santos wrote:
- 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).
Not a primary reason. It so happens that good folks at Redmond also wrote
a firewall that does not just pass along dns requests but transforms them
into rpc calls and those are specific for each RR type with no easy way to
add new types. Microsoft DNS server appears to be capable of dealing with
new RR records as binary, but its not very easy to do or user-friendly.
Both of those products break standards in other ways, so in my view its
not our concern that vendor decided to write incompatible code. Those
products are lot less used then most other products by same vendor and
those who use them do have a choice to use better products on the same OS.
---
William Leibzon
Elan Networks
william(_at_)elan(_dot_)net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html