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).
No. I like one way to do it, and to do it soon it has to be TXT.
2) Do you feel a MARID solution needs the capability of DNS wildcards?
Desirable, but not required. Inbound routing statements and outbound
MARID policy assertions are very different in my mind, so the fact that
* MX is used does not necessarily imply * MARID will be required, but
I can accept arguments that it is a legitimate administrative convenience.
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 for
discussion of this).
Non-MARID adoption of TXT seems fairly low (Reference
http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/mail-archive/msg01530.html), and
some spot checking indicates that much of existing TXT is pointless
hoo-hah. I prefer adoption of TXT without a prefix to give us (2).
Someone can later define a PHH RR for the hoo-hah.