Patrik, On 8/21/2013 7:17 AM, Patrik Fältström wrote:
My conclusion is that a statement that nobody queries for it is false.
Assuming that your conclusion is based on pragmatics and not mathematical purity -- that is, that it is concerned with significant operational effort, rather than a stray implementation here or there, which counts as "noise" in any legitimate statistical analysis -- what is the basis for your conclusion? In other words, please explain how your objection is based on real-world utility rather than something more abstract and detached from practical operations. From your posting to the dnsext working group:
On 8/20/2013 11:58 AM, Patrik Fältström wrote: In general I do believe, for example when looking at IPv6 and DNSSEC and similar technologies, that the lifetime of RFC 4408 is too short to deprecate any of the proposed records that are in use, specifically as RFC 4408 explicitly do allow use of both.
On its face, this sort of thinking means that, in practical terms, nothing can ever be deprecated. It also requires a rather willful ignorance of the essential community operations differences between SPF and IPv6 and DNSSec. There is massive effort to increase use of the latter. There is massive apathy about the former. That is, the metric of essentially no adoption or use is matched by no vector of change. So if you really insist on pursuing your objection, please find some arguments that are anchored in relevant, real-world analytic legitimacy. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net