Re: DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with

On Tuesday, February 28, 2012 02:23:30 PM Doug Barton wrote:
> On 2/27/2012 5:56 PM, John Levine wrote:
> > The problem is provisioning software.  We weenies can stuff anything
> > into our DNS servers we want, because we use vi and emacs and (in my
> > case) custom perl scripts.  For the other 99.5% of the world, what
> > they can put in their DNS zones is limited to whatever the web
> > provisioning software at their registrar or ISP or web host supports,
> > and I challenge you to find any that supports SPF records.
> I have been both the author and a consumer of the types of interfaces
> that you're describing, and I had a very peripheral role in the work to
> evangelize interface support for new TLDs, IPv6, and DNSSEC; so I'm
> familiar with the issue. My experience with these issues tells me that
> when there is demand to support a new RRtype, it will be supported.
>
> So, once again, we need to learn from the mistakes that were made with
> SPF. Here is how life goes in most busy enterprise environments:
>
> 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.
Here is a suggestion for those who are convinced using a new RR type in 
getting a new protocol deployed is now trivially easy and people who don't 
want to do it are lazy/whiners/ignorant/whatever:

A few weeks ago a new effort was announced in the mail authentication space 
called DMARC (see dmarc.org).  It's a brand new protocol that so far has 
minimal deployment.  It currently uses and underscored TXT subdomain, but it 
should be an ideal candidate for a new RR.

Why don't you volunteer to help them navigate through what needs to be done to 
succeed in getting deployment with a new RR type.  If you can manage it, 
that'll be the existence proof that it can be done.

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