RE: DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org 
> [mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Doug Barton
> Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 2:24 PM
> To: John Levine
> Cc: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
> Subject: Re: DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with
>
> Intelligent sysadmin: We need to deploy SPF
> Boss: How does it work?
> I: Well, eventually it will have its own DNS RR, but for now it works
> with TXT records
> B: Ok, put those TXT records in
> <time passes>
> I: It's now possible to use SPF RRs for SPF, so I need to make some
> changes, do some testing, etc.
> B: Are the TXT records working now?
> I: Well yes, but ...
> B: We have more important priorities that I need you to spend your time
> on, leave the thing that's working alone.
>
> Or, put more simply, your conclusion seems to be that we can never add
> new RRs. Given that adding new RRs is crucial to the growth of the
> Internet, I reject that conclusion completely.
Your scenario illustrated the problem nicely: People started SPF with TXT 
records because they were available and the road to a new RRType was seen as a 
steep one.  Once that was even a little bit deployed, it became practically 
irreversible.  The same happened with DKIM, and then VBR, and now it's 
basically common practice to use naming tricks to sidestep the RRType arguments.

I think the right endgame here is to make sure new RRTypes are accessible to 
those that want to have them.  This will remove the temptation to start with 
TXT and, ultimately, stay there.

-MSK
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf