Re: The state of DNS support, was Deprecating SPF

At the risk of ridicule, and in the interest of potentially useful results:

Why not deprecate TXT, or at least abandon the current TXT and introduce
a new TXT code point? And, as each iteration gets trashed, move on to the
next one?

It's not like there is a shortage of type code values, and it is not like
the RDATA of TXT is complicated, or in any way is required to be unique.
SPF is, after all, exactly the same as TXT except for being different.

If SPF want to take over TXT, let them. We can all move to TXT2, until
someone ruins it, and then we can introduce TXT3, etc.

I realize it is rather silly, but if it works, and it disambiguates things,
the fact that it _is_ silly is perhaps not the greatest reason for not
doing it.

This might provide a small clue to the next group of other-protocol folk,
that using TXT instead of asking for their own RRTYPE, is foolish, unwise,
and likely to result in having a new RRTYPE lobbed at them in retaliation.
:-)

(My two cents, late to the discussion.)

Brian

On 8/25/13 9:28 PM, "Andrew Sullivan" <[email protected]> wrote:

>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

_______________________________________________
dnsext mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext