� wrote:
On 3 mar 2012, at 16:56, ned+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Doubtful. If a record needs to have, say, a priority field, or a port number,
given the existence of MX, SRV, and various other RRs it's going to be very
difficult for the designers of said field to argue that that should be done as
ASCII text that has to be parsed out to use.
Agree with you but too many people today "just" program in perl och python
where the parsing is just a cast or similar, and they do not understand
this argument of yours -- which I once again completely stand behind myself.
The original version of Sender-ID (Caller ID Policy) was an XML
version of SPF. In fact, the experimental record still exist:
nslookup -query=txt _ep.hotmail.com
"<ep xmlns='http://ms.net/1' testing='true'>
<out><m><indirect>list1._ep.hotmail.com</indirect>
<indirect>list2._ep.hotmail.com</indirect>
<indirect>list3._ep.hotmail.com</indirect></m></out></ep>"
It was introductions like this that raised eyebrows and the need to
include a new RR type with the simpler language SPF TXT fallback for
SPF and SENDER-ID.
If TXT becomes the acceptable norm, than perhaps the XML format cane
easily be reconsidered for a DNS TXT storage with a common XML I/O
construct. :(
--
HLS
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf