"Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > From: Mark_Andrews@xxxxxxx [mailto:Mark_Andrews@xxxxxxx] > > > No. It just means that the people spreading FUD have succeeded. [ ... ] > > I really don't know why we are arguing about this anymore. > > Adding new RR's has not been a real issue this millenia. > > Because during MARID we looked at the actual tests and discovered > that there was a real problem. > > The last server edition of Windows is Windows 2003. The RFC was > published 2003. It is not suprising therefore that Windows 2003 server > is not compliant with RFC 3597. Microsoft's development cycles for its > server products are long and features have to be proposed several > years in advance. This thread started with the assertion that DNS is a failure and needs to be replaced with a new, better protocol; adding new RRs was part of the evidence. Mark Andrews said that the new RR problem is not valid evidence, because it has been solved. Phillip says no, it hasn't been. But in the original context, Phillip is supporting Mark's point. If the reason the new RR problem hasn't been solved is that the solution is so recent (3 years old) that Microsoft hasn't implemented it yet, obviously this doesn't constitute evidence that we need to solve the problem again by developing a new protocol. -- Cos (Ofer Inbar) -- cos@xxxxxxxxx "OSI is a beautiful dream, and TCP/IP is living it!" -- Einar Stefferud <Stef@xxxxxxx>, IETF mailing list, 12 May 1992 _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf