On 5/18/2004 11:55 AM, Matthew Elvey wrote:
On 5/18/2004 9:26 AM, Eric A. Hall sent forth electrons to convey:
1) collision with every other expiremental RR encoded into TXT,
Any specifics on one that matters?
Take a look at RP which uses TXT RR targets that are sometimes bound to
the associated domain. Every other experimental use is equally valid.
You do not own TXT, and no you cannot have exclusive use of it, which is
what your question implies.
2) even if you move the RR to some other point in the tree, it's
a bad idea to be extra liberal with the encoding. large DNS
messages and answer sets have to leave the UDP-based
What large DNS messages? The evidence presented shows that SPF records
are weighing in at way under 512 B.
IRRELEVANT IF THERE ARE MULTIPLE TXT RESPONSES IN THE SET, INCLUDING THOSE
WHICH HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH SPAM
Again, not applicable. SPF doesn't require packets > 512B.
SETS OF TXT RRS ARE THE PROBLEM
The biggest 'delay' is in getting application developers to work around
native resolver API limitations.
Wow. So a worldwide rollout to anything like most of the DNS servers
and resolvers for 100 million domains using a new RR is infeasible in
the near future in the real world, based on the deployed software out
there, or likely to get out there.
Rolling out new RRs in modern servers is pretty simple. The problem is
with the client-side resolver APIs, which only offer a handful of
pre-defined query types.
--
Eric A. Hall http://www.ehsco.com/
Internet Core Protocols http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/coreprot/