> On Wed, Mar 05, 2008 at 12:52:05AM +1100,
> Mark Andrews <Mark_Andrews@xxxxxxx> wrote
> a message of 94 lines which said:
>
> > So you want to hold up everything because one company
> > produced a API that was not RFC 1123 compliant?
>
> Read my message before tearing me to pieces :-) I clearly said I fully
> support the main conclusion of the draft ("TXT bad, new RR type
> good"). But I regret that the choices of the TXT users are
> misrepresented as pure stupidity.
The IETF is supposed to make engineering decision which
among other things should consider the entire life of of a
protocol.
Most of the cases where people have argued for TXT records,
they really were not making good engineering decisions.
Instead they were looking for short term expediancy.
Middle boxes and API's arguements indicate short term
thinking and should ring alarm bells with any engineer.
I see a lot of short term thinking going on in the IETF.
We should look at what is the best long term outcomes.
Anything a current implementation that is doing wrong will
be long gone before the protocol ceases to be used.
Mark
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: Mark_Andrews@xxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf