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 would prefer to have new DNS record type. Absent of that if we go with
TXT initially we MUST path ahead to new record type and should require all
participants to switch to this new record some time in the future (i.e.
like 4 years from now) once once deployment issues with dns are resolved.
2) Do you feel a MARID solution needs the capability of DNS wildcards?
Yes I do.
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, the wildcards shold be supported from the start, especially seeing as
the TXTs would be the only thing published for first year probably.
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).
if we go with TXT record, its better to have these in dns prefix so as to
avoid collisions with other uses of TXT record. At the same time if we go
with prefix, I can tell you for sure that no matter if we specified it
in the draft or not, people who want to use wildcards, will in fact do so
by entering data directly in main domain's TXT wildcarded record. That is
unless we provide them some other way to support wildcards with TXT (i.e.
if answer to #3 is yes) that is specified by protocol.
--
William Leibzon
Elan Networks
william(_at_)elan(_dot_)net