--Harry Katz <hkatz(_at_)exchange(_dot_)microsoft(_dot_)com> wrote:
I sincerely hope we DO NOT want to define a new RR type! I'm sorry
folks, but this is simply a non-starter. As Meng Wong pointed out
earlier on this thread, the requirement to upgrade DNS software to
handle a new RR makes this a huge adoption barrier. If we want to have
a solution deployed in anything less than geologic time, TXT is the only
pragmatic option.
And please let's not fool ourselves that using TXT records is only an
"interim" solution. It's permanent. There's no way we're going to get
administrators to publish their MTA IP addresses in TXT records today
and then at some point in the future get them to re-publish using
another RR. And of course any software that implements checking for
these records would forever have to check both TXT and whatever new RR
we come up with since there will inevitably be laggards.
Er, I disagree. Strongly. Sure, upgrading your DNS is a hassle, but I
think those servers will be upgraded anyway regardless of what we do. We
*are* talking about writing a new RFC here. Five years from now, whoever
puts their names on that proposal will probably look sheepishly at their
toes while describing "Yeah we really though TXT (or A or SRV) records were
not ideal but we didn't want to wait and we didn't want to put in an
interim solution".
Speaking of barriers to adoption, XML is a big one. So is an underscore in
the label. :-)
--
Greg Connor <gconnor(_at_)nekodojo(_dot_)org>