Re: field types, was provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



John Levine wrote:

Now mail clients parse
multiple SPF and DKIM records on every mail transaction and nobody
cares.

Well....., its not like anyone really had a choice.

SPF is still maturing with its RR type, DKIM didn't bother, and now also have VBR, ADSP and now ATPS and then DMARC (all by the same group of people), where for the total coverage aware integrator is a major overhead, 4-5 calls with a very low yield. I care about it. Its ugly. But no choice.

I suppose that unparsed records mean that the server can't add
additional section records, but based on yesterday's discussion, it
sounds like nobody's using them any more, so who cares?

Do you think a TXT only based DNS application can today pass the IETF/IESG DNS community endorsement to IS?

I think another part of the problem is that many of these TXT bases protocols currently on the radar are all related in some form or fashion. A solution to merge all or just some where applicable, to reduce multiple calls and redundancy, can help alleviate some of the concerns.

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]