ietf-mxcomp
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: co-chair judgment of consensus related to last call period of 23-Aug-2004 to 10-Sept-2004

2004-09-12 10:50:50

"Eric A. Hall" <ehall(_at_)ehsco(_dot_)com> wrote:

 * specs sent to last call MUST include a new RRType code

 * an addendum or a sibling spec MAY describe coexistence mechs for
   a TXT RR for backwards compatibilty

I fully agree. And the question of whether a prefix is necessary or not
is of course closely related to the choice of RR type. TXT would need
a prefix, a new type would not.
And regarding the "installed base": while I appreciate the efforts by the
proponents and the early adopters, recent counts for a certain larger
TLD show that there are only a few thousand TXT RRs with "spf" content,
often multiple of those existing in (below) the same 2nd level domain.
Less than 2% of TXT RRs are used for SPF.
This is of course a success for this project but does not constitute
an installed base cast in stone compared to what would be necessary to
talk about wide deployment. A6 seems to have been more popular before it
was redirected down the experiment path.

-Peter


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>