Since my answer to (2) is wishy-washy, I answered both questions (3) and (4)
"Andrew Newton" <andy(_at_)hxr(_dot_)us> wrote:
1) During the MARID interim meeting, Ted Hardie suggested a dual record
type approach whereby TXT would be used in servers incapable of
supporting a new record type, but more capable servers would use a new
record type (specifically defined for MARID). Do you feel this is a
workable solution? (Reference Margaret Olson's description here:
http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/mail-archive/msg01512.html).
<http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/mail-archive/msg01512.html).>
Yes
2) Do you feel a MARID solution needs the capability of DNS wildcards?
It's highly desirable but I would hesitate to call it an absolute
requirement
3) If you answered "yes" to both of the above questions, then is it
reasonable to expect DNS wildcard capability only with the new record
type and not the TXT usage (because TXT may be defined to use a
prefix)?
No. This will just cause confusion. Given the state of new record type
support it is tantamount to no wildcard support, and if that is the case we
should just say so.
4) If you answered "no" to either (1) or (2), then do you feel it is
acceptable for TXT reuse to specify a prefix and that environments
needing DNS wildcard behavior may do so at the risk of collision or
other side-effects? (Reference
http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/mail-archive/msg01691.html
<http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/mail-archive/msg01691.html> for
discussion of this).
yes