Re: The state of DNS support, was Deprecating SPF

In message <[email protected]>, "John Levine" writes:
> >The point here is that protocols evolve all the time as we learn what's a go
> od idea and what isn't. You (and others) appear to be
> >arguing that protocols that get deployed and gain some level of acceptance, 
> even as "Experimental", are cast in stone and that the
> >IETF must be forbidden from modifying them unless there is explicit evidence
>  that markets will _immediately_ seize upon those
> >modifications. I think that view is broken.
> 
> No, it's the converse.  When protocols are deployed and widely
> accepted, if someone wants to make changes that have NO OPERATIONAL
> ADVANTAGES WHATSOEVER, it's up to the proponents to explain why the
> world will adopt them.  King Canute and all that.

They have a operational advantage especially over the long term or
if you consider the overall maintenance of DNS records for a site.
This has been demostrated several times.  Do you think we would be
having this argument if there was not a operational advantage?

> The practical operational advantages of http/1.0 and /1.1 over /0.9
> were obvious.  The advantages of SPF type 99 over type 16 were purely
> hypothetical in 2006 and equally hypothetical now.
> 
> R's,
> John
> _______________________________________________
> 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