Edward Lewis <edlewis(_at_)arin(_dot_)net> wrote:
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,
Other systems also have problems with deploying new software for new
RR types. Maybe fewer problems, but it's not an issue we can ignore.
Pro: Using TXT means we can deploy MARID more quickly
Con: Using TXT means we probably can't use TXT for anything else,
unless we add additional constraints like "_MARID" sub-domains.
Pro: Using TXT means that MARID may be deployed without software upgrades
Con: Using TXT means that the MARID records are probably not represented
in an efficient fashion.
Pro: A new RR type doesn't cause conflicts with existing TXT or RR types.
Con: A new RR type can take a long time to deploy.
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.
The WG consensus is up to the WG, which is exactly what IETF stands
for.
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).
That, I agree with.
Alan DeKok.