On 02/28/2012 15:06, John R. Levine wrote:
> In your little dialog, the boss was entirely reasonable -- the practical
> benefit from implementing SPF records would be zip.
>
>> Or, put more simply, your conclusion seems to be that we can never add
>> new RRs. Given that adding new RRs is crucial to the growth of the
>> Internet, I reject that conclusion completely.
>
> No, I'm saying that it would be a lot more productive to help people
> improve their provisioning systems, rather than say how stupid they are
> for not doing what we want.
Um, who called anyone stupid? As you pointed out above, the lack of
movement from SPF{TXT} to SPF{SPF} was entirely rational.
My point was that *we* need to learn from our experiences with SPF, and
not do the same things again.
> By the way, what's your opinion of draft-levine-dnsextlang-02?
It isn't clear to me what problem you're trying to solve. For resolving
name servers 3597 should be enough. For authoritative name servers your
idea is sort of interesting, but generally upgrading the software to
pick up support for new RRtypes is a good idea, since you'll also pick
up new security fixes, etc.
Doug
--
If you're never wrong, you're not trying hard enough
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf