Re: DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with

On Wednesday, February 29, 2012 10:17:52 AM Mark Andrews wrote:
> In message
> <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E00392804C720(_at_)exch-mbx901(_dot_)corp(_dot_)cloudmark(_dot_)co
> m>, "Murray S. Kucherawy" writes:
> > > -----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 reco rds because they were available and the road to a new RRType
> > was seen as a ste ep one.  Once that was even a little bit deployed, it
> > became practically irrev ersible.  The same happened with DKIM, and
> > then VBR, and now it's basically co mmon 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 t hose that want to have them.  This will remove the
> > temptation to start with TX T and, ultimately, stay there.
> They are there.  They were there when SPF was being developed.  They
> were there when DKIM was being developed.  It's just the neigh
> sayers won out.
>
> Libresolv has supported unknown types for 25 years.  Other C libraries
> support them.  dnspython supports them.  dnsjava supports them.  It
> really isn't hard to get a length tagged blob of data back to the
> application.
>
> Authoritative nameservers support them.  Recursive nameservers
> support them and always have modulo bugs.
>
> If your DNS hosting company doesn't support them find another one
> or complain to them.  You are paying them to host your DNS services
> and this is a basic part of the job.
To what hosting company should I switch if I want to publish SPF records of 
Type SPF?

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