On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 08:39:36AM -0400, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: > On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 3:46 PM, manning bill <bmanning@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > the question is not that "nobody" checks type 99, the question is > > "is the rate of adoption > > of type 99 -changing- in relation to type 16? > > > > As John pointed out, support for checking type 99 has decreased and > continues to decrease rather than increase. So waiting longer is not going > to solve the issue. that is unclear... we have second hand reports, but only actual data from very recent DNS logs. did those numbers increase or decrease? No evidence has been presented. > Putting a statement in an RFC does not mean that the world will > automatically advance towards that particular end state. ain't it the truth. -BUT- its still worthwhile documenting the best technical path and why it was abandoned. The issues wrt wildcards (thanks), DNSSEC considerations, and code overhead to demux type 16 vs. the temporary problem of two lookups -IF- type 99 is not used, plus past guidance from the IAB and the IESG really need to make it into a document in the RFC cannon. > Forcing a WG to adopt a position to suit another constituency is not going > to lead them to advocate for that position in deployment constituencies. > Particularly when the original constituency does nothing to advance > deployment. Dorthy Parker said: "You can lead a whore to culture, but you can't make her think". Point the bias arrow either way youd like. And as stated elsewhere, if Yahoo, Google, Microsoft, AOL, et.al. were simply waiting for the IETF to settle on a solution, I'll raise O'Dells law; "The installed base does not matter". End of the day, the SPFBIS wg is adament in their choice, document, explain and move on. Robert Heinlein: Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig. I think the SPFBIS folks are annoyed enough... > > > -- > Website: http://hallambaker.com/ > _______________________________________________ > dnsext mailing list > dnsext@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext