At 10:16 -0700 6/10/04, Bob Atkinson wrote:
No; this is not acceptable. TXT is not a prototyping notion here; it's
the mainstream deployment option. Indeed, pragmatically, with that
reality there's no point to a dedicated RR type (though having one
additionally isn't fatal, just misguided).
You've missed the arguments, but I find that I'm at a loss what further
I or Jim could say that might alleviate that problem, so I'll not say
anything further on the topic.
I'm bothered by this.
Perhaps I'm confused, but this is my assessment of the situation.
The use of the TXT RR is required because of one proprietary system's
partial implementation of the DNS specification, referring to the
RPC-based mechanism. I am assuming the RPC-based system described is
a proprietary one, if not, correct me. (I don't know if this is an
Microsoft product [not that it matters], and if so, which one. I'm
not familiar with Microsoft environments.)
MARID stands for "MTA Authorization Records in DNS." DNS is an IETF
standard. As a participant in this group, I expect to be able to
rely on all of the features of IETF protocols. I don't expect to be
trying to shoe horn solutions to only those features one
implementation chooses to implement. That's not playing fair in the
game of interoperability. If the WG is going to come to a conclusion
that favors one implementation's environment, I don't care to
participate - because that's not what I thought the IETF stood for.
I cannot justify seeing an IETF specification sacrificing one
protocol for another because of a non-interoperable implementation.
(By this I mean that I can't see MARID generating a protocol that
interferes with DNS.) In the MARID charter this is found: "the
semantics of proposals originating within this group are consonant
with DNS standards and syntax." It says nothing about partial
implementations of DNS. In other words, I don't give credibility to
the statements that "require" the use of TXT.
The message from those who are working on DNS is "create your own RR"
and "don't use TXT RR's". I'd be willing to bet that MARID won't be
able to attain even a Proposed Standard document if they insist on
using the TXT RR. I can see a Proposed Standard being attained with
specific (new) record, with either a BCP or maybe an Experimental
document detailing an interim plan based on TXT RR's. That's no lock
either - but I cannot see any action on the standards track by one
protocol that knowingly abuses another protocol.
If my assumptions here are incorrect, please let me know. What I've
written here is predicated on assuming that the RPC-based environment
is not conformant to IETF standards, and in particular to DNS (the
last letter of MARID).
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis +1-703-227-9854
ARIN Research Engineer
Even the voices inside my head are refusing to talk to me anymore.