On Sun, 5 Sep 2004, Michael R. Brumm wrote:
This is a good point, however:
- MARID has an immediate (emergency-like) need for widespread deployment
like few other standards, and thus the precedent is limited. Most (if not
all) other standards can depend on RFC 3597 (unknown RR types) and/or
underscored prefixes.
The "immediate need" or emergency is in the eye of the beholder. What may
seem urgent for us may not seem so urgent for somebody else and similarly
what may seem like not so important matter to us maybe very important
and seemingly an emergency for somebody else.
The precident will be there, that one is certainly right, so don't be
surprised if somebody else wants to use it for their "emergency".
As such we better show good understanding of such emergency situation
and good example for that to follow in our technical solution.
- Requiring an underscored prefix to prevent this (likely non-existent)
future problem prevents and slows adoption of MARID by those whose DNS
providers do not allow underscores. It would seem strange if MARID
provided TXT publishing to improve deployment, but then placed it in an
underscored prefix which impedes deployment.
I have a question for Michael here:
Is "_" as part of the prefix name the only problem you see (or the
primarily one) as far as what you see wrong about introduced idea of
using prefixes for placement of SPF TXT records?
Similarly if others here who have so far spoken against using prefix also
see underscore as the main problem, please also speak up as I believe it
is important issue for chairs to recongnize as far as arguments against it
and how strong technically these arguments are.
--
William Leibzon
Elan Networks
william(_at_)elan(_dot_)net