On Jun 2, 2007, at 10:31 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
On Saturday 02 June 2007 13:02, Steve Atkins wrote:
On Jun 2, 2007, at 9:40 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
On Saturday 02 June 2007 12:27, Steve Atkins wrote:
So if the spec states "SSP clients must query for new RR first,
then
TXT" you wouldn't expect most receivers to comply with that?
Eventually, if the new RR type gets some deployment.
The original statement by Arvel (which Hector agreed with) was:
If we come out with a spec that states "SSP clients must query for
new RR first, then TXT" senders would be right to expect compliance.
I do not see how this statement can be true for, at least, several
years. Hence my question to Arvel and Hector - is this statement
false, or are they assuming SSP deployment will wait until widespread
adoption of a new RR.
I think the entire point of having TXT is to get deployment started
soon.
I don't think that mandating checking the new RR type will do much
to get it
deployed. If it's going to get deployed, it has to have an
advantage. If
wildcards are an important use case, then it'll get deployed. In the
meantime, I don't see the value in mandating checking the new RR
type first.
This is particularly true since there are deployed resovlers that
don't reply
at all to unknown RR Types. You'd have to wait for a timeout and
then query
TXT. That would not help message delivery timelines.
Exactly.
If there's widespread belief in the general value of a policy RR then
it can be developed properly, and deployed at a reasonable
rate. If, by the time the new RR is supported by most DNS
infrastructure,
SSP is still considered useful it can be upgraded then to support
the new RR.
As an aside, I don't believe there's anything that prevents use
of TXT records, as currently specced, with wildcards, other than
lack of support in the more widely used nameservers. If a sender
wants wildcard support there are two things they can do.
They can wait until pretty much everyone they may ever want to
send email to has updated to support the new RR at every point
in their DNS resolution stack, all the way to the MTA.
Or they can ask the vendor of their authoritative DNS server
to support TXT wildcards. I suspect the latter would be a much
faster solution for those senders who need wildcard support,
and it's likely the only solution for those senders who need it
this decade.
Cheers,
Steve
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html