Re: SPF isn't going to change, was Deprecating SPF
Andrew Sullivan <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.dnsext |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 11:49:01AM +0000, [email protected] wrote: > so on one hand, you have the second query (load & latency) > ((exactly like a CA lookup)) v. the RR demux that has to occur > for type 16. > > sounds like the tradeoff between code complexity and network latency... Except that as a matter of fact, one of them is very likely to be needless cost. That is, you're going to need to cope with the TXT record _anyway_, because that's what's deployed everywhere. So you have to pay cost of code complexity for demuxing no matter what. The question is only whether we'll still have the code complexity of handling two RRTYPEs and have the additional latency of the extra lookup. This is exactly the question the WG looked at, and concluded that it was a bad trade. This is all in the WG list archives, and you are making no new argument. > (is there a statement from the "one who _was_ doing something" as to > why they changed?) Not to my knowledge. Best, A -- Andrew Sullivan [email protected] _______________________________________________ dnsext mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext