On Tuesday 17 April 2007 23:40, Jim Fenton wrote:
Scott Kitterman wrote:
Additional arguement Con is that a new RR type takes a LONG time to
deploy.
In 2 - 5 years when this new RR type is deployed, whatever problem it was
trying to solve will likely be solved some other way.
I know this has come up before; I have long been searching for specifics
on what needs to be updated. Name servers? Resolvers? Caches? I know
you can do this today with current and recent versions of BIND. I have
heard that some Microsoft products may have problems with new RR types,
but real facts have been elusive.
The only recent parallel that I'm aware of if the new RR Type for SPF. It
will be two years ago in July when the type was assigned. Within a week of
the assignment a few domains where publishing Type 99 records (and those of
us that maintain the Python SPF library had Type 99 support implemented in
about the same amount of time). So, yes. Rapid deployment for test use is
possible.
That is not the same thing as something that gets deployed for production use.
The first version of BIND that natively supports Type SPF was just recently
released.
I think that the reality is that unless a new RR type is the only possible
solution to a pressing problem, the internet will just route around the
roadblock and solve the problem another way.
Scott K
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html