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 shouldn't underestimate the hassle and cost involved here, nor
overestimate the frequency with which this happens. Most
organizations
will require significantly greater business justification for
upgrading
than just support of a new RR type.
DNS upgrades happened frequently in the days when Paul Vixie
was uncovering a whole rash of security issues. But that is ten
years ago. The situation today is that DNS is a very stable
infrastructure.
But we really need to get some figures here, preferably not from
a source with an interest in showing how eager the world is to
take up new releases.
Five years from now, if we have widespread deployment of MARID
information in TXT records and it has contributed to a reduction in
spam, I for one would be proud to have my name on the
document that led to that result.
On the other hand the Queen decided to give Bill Gates a knighthood
for promising to eliminate spam by Jan 2006. If he does not deliver
she might want to take it away again. I think we have to be more
aggressive here.
If underscore is truly a blocker -- and no one I've spoken to has yet
said that it is -- then we'll happily get rid of it.
I think the underscore was a blocker for SPF. It is not a blocker
in the same way for an IETF endorsed spec.
Phill