Andras Salamon wrote:
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 11:53:29PM -0000, John Levine wrote:
If you think it's important to move it to full standard, why don't you
do somthing about it? A quick look suggests that 3597 meets the
requirements in sec 2.2 of RFC 6410 I wouldn't think that it'd be hard
to persuade someone on the IESG to sponsor the required last call.
Ólafur Gudmundsson nominated RFC 3597 to advance from Proposed to
Draft Standard in message <6.1.0.6.2.20040819092046.02d2dec0@localhost>
of 19 Aug 2004. This was based on -00 of Jakob Schlyter's draft,
of which the most recent version is from May 2005:
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-dnsext-interop3597-02.txt
Since Jakob already did an important part of the work, I would
first like to understand what happened to the advancement request,
especially in light of the two revisions of the interoperability
report after the request. Does anyone have pointers?
(I know that PS/DS were merged a couple of years ago, but would still
like to understand how the PS->DS process went, and if it failed, why.)
I appreciate this level of work to see why it fell through the cracks.
I believe it is one of the IETF growing lack of diversity issues,
i.e., improving electronic communications, collaborations and
networking among industry peers.
This should be a project leader(s) responsibility to make sure the
basic technology requirements are realistic or not, i.e., consult and
get input from the DNS industry vendors, make them aware and/or to
find out why this has not happen yet.
For example, why hasn't Microsoft supported RFC 3597 yet? You will be
surprise that a well respected Microsoft DNS Expert and MVP (Most
Valuable Player) was unaware of such needs, nor was his microsoft
contacts and the MSDNS beta team based on a discussion with him:
http://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/windowsserver/en-US/5841e884-db22-42a1-8530-615a375662cc/dns-server-support-for-new-or-unamed-rr-type-records
This was back in March/April 2012.
If Microsoft isn't going to bother to add direct support for the SPF
type99 RR, nor support RFC 3597 at the very least, I believe this
matter is decided and closed. TXT only is proper for SPFBIF and for
future DNS applications as well.
I am sure there are key IETF decision makers with Microsoft DNS
product manager contacts who can find out whats going on to help
resolve this LC issue.
--
HLS