Re: The state of DNS support, was Deprecating SPF
Andrew Sullivan <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.dnsext |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 12:07:00PM +1200, Jay Daley wrote: > 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. > That's just not a motivation. There is _no_ business case to conform to any standard unless it's mandated in RFPs. This very fact is what allows the IETF to continue on its merry way despite the desire of Official Bodies to try to legislate the value of pi and other such things. There is no first-, or even any-mover advantage to changing from type-16 to type-99 in the scenario you provide, except for people who are otherwise regulated. > There's a simple, rational, causal chain here > > - users don't use type 99 because implementors don't support it Your "users" chain is wrong. There are _two_ kinds of users, and both ends need to do something before there is any value at all. That's the problem, and why the comparison to http 1.0 vs 1.1 seems to me to be troublesome. More generally, and not aimed at Jay in particular: without trying to come across as impatient or dismissive, I have to say that I'm getting worn out by arguments rehashing exactly the issues that were hashed, mostly by me in the hot seat, on the SPFBIS list. I tried _all_ these arguments, and I conceded in the end because I didn't have a leg to stand on. If people have a new one to present, I'd be delighted to encounter it. But since I'm bearing all the wounds from the SPFBIS battle, it'd be nice if erstwhile supporters of the position I tried, with little help, to defend would at least work through the arguments that were already presented. This isn't religion: I'm as sickend by this use of TXT as anyone. But the world makes us as much as we make the world, and I think the TXT fight _in this case_ is lost. I also think that NATs are a fact of the world, that NAT64/DNS64 is better than NAT-PT, and so on. We've reached sufficient thrust. Do we really want to stand around where the pig is going to land? Best, A -- Andrew Sullivan [email protected] _______________________________________________ dnsext mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext