Re: The state of DNS support, was Deprecating SPF
Jay Daley <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.dnsext |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 26/08/2013, at 11:46 AM, Andrew Sullivan <[email protected]> wrote: > [a whole bunch of stuff I've snipped that was well reasoned and surprisingly succinct for a philosophy student] > ... > So the transition strategy in this case involves every actor > either paying a cost up front with no direct benefit, or else a > strategy that prefers the pre-transition state with the desired state > a second-best alternative. This seems like a significant difference > to me. What did I miss? You almost got it Andrew, it's the answer to the one question - "If we mandate type 99 then what motivates users at both ends to implement it?" with due consideration to any difficulties they might encounter. The motivation for implementors would be to stay standards compliant and there would be few difficulties because the code changes are minor. The motivation for end users would also be to stay standards compliant and once the implementors support it then there would be little difficulty. There's a simple, rational, causal chain here - users don't use type 99 because implementors don't support it - implementors don't support type 99 because they don't have to - they don't have to because the RFC says they don't have to Change the root premise and the motivation is there for the rest to flow through with no real barriers in the way. Jay -- Jay Daley Chief Executive .nz Registry Services (New Zealand Domain Name Registry Limited) desk: +64 4 931 6977 mobile: +64 21 678840 linkedin: www.linkedin.com/in/jaydaley _______________________________________________ dnsext mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext