ietf-mxcomp
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Towards resolution on Wildcards

2004-06-10 11:43:54

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).

I can live with the dual record approach but would prefer a TXT-record-only
approach. I forsee huge deployment difficulties for new RR types; I suspect the
issues raised thus far on the list have barely scratched the surface of the
operational swamp that's out there.

2) Do you feel a MARID solution needs the capability of DNS wildcards?

Needs? In an absolute sense, no.  But as a practical matter people are going to
want them and are going to be unable/unwilling to work around not having them.

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. It is entirely possible that the TXT record approach will succeed and a
followon new RR will never successfully replace it. We need to allow for this
eventuality even if we don't like it.

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).

No answer since I answered yes to both.

                                Ned