--- Andrew Newton <andy(_at_)hxr(_dot_)us> wrote:
On Aug 30, 2004, at 5:58 PM, Richard Shockey wrote:
I belive this argument has already been decided and the IAB and IESG
will not accept further specifications that are based on the use of
the TXT RR with the singular exception for MARID for the well know
reasons outlined in the San Diego meetings.
I hope this is true.
That entirely depends on whether you want to be pragmatic or idealistic. As far
as I can tell,
changes to DNS are glacial at best. In the very best of circumstances, a new
DNS type takes at least five and more likely ten years before it can be safely
assumed to have wide-spread support.
By saying that TXT is inappropriate you are effectively saying that any
solution that uses the DNS is 5-10 years from practical deployment.
In effect the DNS folk are a classic chicken and egg problem. Even relatively
non-controversial changes like EDNS0 which was promulgated in 1999 have still
to achieve wide-spread support, some 5 years later.
Are you seriously suggesting we create a new DNS type, sans practical
experience, then wait 5-10 years before we can even consider using it?
Yes and NAPTR's work ..the support is already in all the DNS
reference models and resolvers.
NAPTR's are good. Another possibility is a new modifier (pointing to
the place where the key material) in existing SPF records.
I don't see the value-add that NAPTR offers. It's a regex in DNS. Who needs
that? What value does it add?
If it can't fit into a DNS packet, I actually favor an ESMTP extension
2048bit keys can fit in UDP DNS replies. Do you want more than that?
Besides. ESMTP is point to point. We're talking about an end-to-end solution
where intermediaries are irrelevant.
Mark.