On Apr 25, 2008, at 4:21 PM, Jim Fenton wrote:
The requirement to publish large numbers of ADSP records is a
barrier to its widespread adoption, at least its adoption in a way
that provides broad coverage for domains. This can be addressed
with tools, but the requirement to add tooling to achieve good ADSP
coverage is also a deployment barrier. Similar concerns led the WG
to the use of TXT records rather than a new RR. There are a lot of
DNS management tools out there that would need to change in order to
publish the necessary ADSP records, and this would take considerable
time.
Publishing ADSP records in conjunction with SMTP discovery records
should not be described as "large" numbers. This would have a direct
correspondence with records already published. Lack of NXDOMAIN as
component of ADSP validation is wholly unmanageable and can easily
explode into large number.
Why not depend upon discovery records? How many public message
exchange protocols beyond SMTP will use ADSP records? Who even
expects widespread adoption of ADSP? Why would it be difficult to
provide ADSP coverage predicated upon the existence of SMTP discovery
records? The lack of MX records should also preclude the use of ADSP.
-Doug
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html