Meng Weng Wong wrote:
On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 03:33:22AM -0400, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
I strongly urge that the proposal be modified to use the obsolete RR
types MD and MF from RFC1035.
I agree with this.
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2782.html: DNS SRV
Abstract
This document describes a DNS RR which specifies the location of
the server(s) for a specific protocol and domain.
I don't believe SRV RR's are appropriate, because really what we're
defining via the RR is authorized client hosts, not servers providing a
service.
What we really need is our own RR type, and I would love to have one,
but getting a new RRtype published runs counter to our goal of fast
widespread adoption. I would like to get some input from a DNS WG
about how long it will take to get a new RRtype approved, and whether
domains will need to upgrade their nameservers to work with the new
RRtype. I know tinydns lets you specify any RRtype you want using a
":" line.
I agree, SPF needs it's own RR type, but I don't believe that's a change
that can be made quickly. SPF v2.0 maybe?
---
Dustin D. Trammell
Vulnerability Remediation Alchemist
Citadel Security Software, Inc.
-------
Sender Permitted From: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname(_at_)½§Åv¼ð¦¾Øß´ë ù1Ií-»Fqx(_dot_)com