Re: The state of DNS support, was Deprecating SPF
"John R Levine" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.dnsext |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
> The current support in GUI tools should not be the guide for a standards > discussion. The dnsext regulars have been denying for years that provisioning is an issue, so it's dismaying but not surprising to see that hasn't changed. Ten years ago when SPF was new, its designers considered and rejected using a _spf prefix because so many of the provisioning systems that mail managers had to use to provision real mail systems didn't permit underscores in names. That particular bug has been fixed, but support for type 99, seven years after the RR was defined, is where the underscores were a decade ago. A few provisioning systems handle it, most don't, so in practice people can't use it. You can tell your students to use it, but when they get back to their offices, their system managers will tell them sorry, can't do that. What use is that? Someone pointed out some mail exchanges earlier this year where users asked providers for type 99 support, and the providers said they'd wait to see what the IETF did. This tells us two things: one is that after seven years, providers still consider type 99 to be entirely optional, but the more important is that adding new RRs to provisioning systems is still much too hard. (If it were just adding three lines to a table, I expect the providers would have done so rather than arguing with their users.) Regards, John Levine, [email protected], Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY "I dropped the toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly. PS: Something like my dns extension proposal should allow providers to fix the new RR configuration problem once and for all, so I've always been surprised at the hostile reception to it. _______________________________________________ dnsext mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext