On Tue, Mar 28, 2006 at 08:51:59AM +0200, Eliot Lear allegedly wrote: > Mark, > > My larger concern is this: it's important that we get the RR done in > time for the base so that we have the query rules done, stating that the > new RR should be preferred to TXT records.
Agreed. And, er, forgive my propensity to density, but I presume you're suggesting that a separate doc adds risk because the timing may not work out. That concern is clearly valid. The trade-offs are that: a) the base is kept simpler and more manageable b) from a deployment perspective, we may be able to get the ball rolling earlier on DNS s/w support c) the DNS RR can progress without all the issues that will arise with the base d) a separate doc has considerable precedent. Eg, RFC821 does not describe MX RRs. In fact most RRs as far as I can tell are described in isolation from the application protocol. e) some on this WG think that a new RR is a serious distraction and a waste of time. De-coupling a new RR avoids their concerns. I'm not in a position to judge any of these perspectives and none of them strike me as compelling, but on the whole, if we diligently work on an RR spec, which I promise to do, a separate doc seems to have some merit. Mark. _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
