Re: The state of DNS support, was Deprecating SPF
David Conrad <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.dnsext |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Andrew, On Aug 25, 2013, at 4:00 PM, Andrew Sullivan <[email protected]> wrote: > We have a functioning system that's actually deployed, as far as anyone has argued. It is far from perfect, but it works. The original version of HTTP was a deployed, functioning system that despite being far from perfect, worked. The original protocol (the one without persistent connections) also had unpleasant side effects (see http://www.ibiblio.org/mdma-release/http-prob.html if you'd like a refresher). However, instead of saying "deployed systems, no server operator has any incentive to change, let's just accept the status quo and make sure it doesn't happen again", the protocol was modified and people have largely migrated to the new protocol over a large number of years (still vestiges of the old protocol out there, but definitely a minority). > Even one example would suffice. I suspect this won't matter. People's minds are made up. Regards, -drc _______________________________________________ dnsext mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext
signature.asc
(application/pgp-signature, 495 B)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJSGpF9AAoJEIzZ2DQOJFbK6aYIALJgYVm3xS03VHm5O9yEb2Fy fJ8FtC6MZ56QLDLs//muqFkNoet+SQRQmeEx1WarfCx2zzMbzrwjkBLyxTL14oYi 9FqV1jSKhTuvucv3a9UVr5ivs8D5ScQ+c1UDa6pbtWtmPWIa29KoLWZZGwMoMPhF ahng1uOzm2A3DA4wAowhVoVX+e7WHYpVnMf4NW19eqqTClqwBOZrDHZmATdda9vC CHA25OBT23RdvZqsNFxi7KtUIvwKJmhV9RRDh7OqSTIahLMNW9nF+dCW/1lI0xXl KS4ZXFLyWtDScjflrwJ7qzFkeL8DwtF7AehgkHNCPY1Nq+Ofu9nj7n7TURaHWUc= =oJut -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----