Re: Re: draft-ietf-marid-protocol-03

On Sep 23, 2004, at 02:01, Frank Ellermann wrote:
> william(at)elan.net wrote:
> > I'll not particAipate in the SPF effort further if we do not
> > agree to work on moving to new dedicated SPF RR DNS records
> > for the future.
>
> IMHO you can't simply invent new RR types, that's something the
> IETF is supposed to do. and that's why there was a MARID WG.
> But MARID was closed, so how do you think to get a new DNS RR ?

Frank and WIlliam,

Because in my day job, I am looking to get some DNS RR records for my own projects (that is why I attended IETF60 in San Diego). I found that the chairs of the DNS WG quite receptive to issuing new RR types. I expect that you could get an SPF RR type just for asking. In fact, there was rumbling that some DNS aware members of the IESG were planning to oppose MARID because of the heavy dependence on TXT. Therefore, I think everyone would be happier if we just applied for an RR for both spf1 and spf2. SPF does not have to be an IETF standard to get an RR. There are many examples of IETF providing support for experimental protocols. In fact, this liberal policy would be required by IETF practice of running, deployed code to gather experience. In fact, in closing down MARID, the chairs explicitly suggested that we go gather operational experience. I think an getting RR is a slam dunk.

Just do it,
Andrew

P.S. I don't want to step on the SPF authors/editors toes but I would be happy to piggy back an SPF RR request on top of my own RR request. I will be at the November IETF meeting and could easily discuss the RR issues in the DNS WG.

____________________________________
Andrew W. Donoho
awd(_at_)DDG(_dot_)com, PGP Key ID: 0x81D0F250
+1 (512) 453-6652 (o), +1 (512) 750-7596 (m)