RE: SSP RR vs TXT [was Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP and o= values]

> From: Tony Hansen [mailto:tony(_at_)att(_dot_)com] 
> So it sounds like their database *will* support the 
> additional RR values, it's just that they don't make it easy 
> to use them.
Not to a level that is remotely meaningful. If you cannot save the
information out of the database or query it using the standard tools you
have created an administration nightmare. When a system reboots the
configuration will change in unexpected ways. 


> Until they get their standard interface fixed, it sounds like 
> Microsoft (or a 3rd party) could provide an alternative 
> interface that additionally stored the RRs in a separate 
> database that would survive the reboot, and included a 
> service that ran at boot time that would reload those 
> additional RRs into the real database.
The problem is not just Microsoft, the problem is that this is typical of
the level of support in deployed infrastructure. The claimed level of
support for new RRs was 85%. The realistic level of support was measured at
somewhat less than 50%.

If Olafur had the numbers to back up his case he would not have taken the
approach he did. If he had the facts on his side he would have brought a
slide.

smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html