On Sunday 15 October 2006 16:13, Eliot Lear wrote:
Scott Kitterman wrote:
This draft mentions the posibility of requiring a new resource record
type. It isn't clear from the draft if the mention is in reference to the
idea of using a new RR type in parallel with TXT for some period or if
the idea is possibly deployment exclusively in the new RR type.
If it's the latter, I think that this would be an extraordinarily bad
idea. In my opinion, if this protocol is going to require a new RR type
to go forward, it will never get deployed.
Recommend a new requirement that the protocol MUST NOT depend solely on a
new DNS RR type just so there won't be any confusion on this.
I would suggest that whatever approach SSP uses be consistent with what
has been done with the base protocol.
+1.
Scott K
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html