Re: field types, was provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficu

John Levine wrote:

> Now mail clients parse
> multiple SPF and DKIM records on every mail transaction and nobody
> cares.  
Well....., its not like anyone really had a choice.

SPF is still maturing with its RR type, DKIM didn't bother, and now 
also have VBR, ADSP and now ATPS and then DMARC (all by the same group 
of people), where for the total coverage aware integrator is a major 
overhead, 4-5 calls with a very low yield.  I care about it. Its ugly. 
But no choice.
> I suppose that unparsed records mean that the server can't add
> additional section records, but based on yesterday's discussion, it
> sounds like nobody's using them any more, so who cares?
Do you think a TXT only based DNS application can today pass the 
IETF/IESG DNS community endorsement to IS?
I think another part of the problem is that many of these TXT bases 
protocols currently on the radar are all related in some form or 
fashion.  A solution to merge all or just some where applicable, to 
reduce multiple calls and redundancy, can help alleviate some of the 
concerns.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf