Re: The state of DNS support, was Deprecating SPF

In message <[email protected]>, "John R Levine" wri
tes:
> > 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.

The problem is no one is doing maintenance on some of those tools.
The number of RR types was expected to grow from day one.  New RR
types have been added at a rate of about 1 a year for the entire
history of the DNS.

It doesn't help when companies charge 500% more to allow you to
enter a SPF record.  Yes that is bundled with a whole lot of other
stuff but if all you want is the ability to add SPF it is going to
cost you 500% more.

Part of the problem is people don't know they be being badly treated
by their registrars.  They don't know that there should be AAAA and
DNSSEC support in the GUI's.

If registrars were to lose acceditation if they didn't add support
for a record within 3 years of it being allocated you would see a
big difference.

People keep saying leave it to market forces.  Market force only really
work when the market is properly informed.  The great unwashed out there
are not informed.  The same thing can be said of many of the registrars.

> 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.)

It also tells us if we were to say MUST lookup up SPF then they would add
support.

> 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
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: [email protected]
_______________________________________________
dnsext mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext