Follow the MARID May/2004 "Wild Card MXes" Thread at: http://www.mhonarc.org/archive/html/ietf-mxcomp/2004-05/msg00504.html http://www.mhonarc.org/archive/html/ietf-mxcomp/2004-05/msg00461.html
Bob Atkinson seems to explain in detail. --- Hector ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tony Hansen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "IETF DKIM WG" <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 8:46 AM Subject: Re: SSP RR vs TXT [was Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP and o= values] > So it sounds like their database *will* support the additional RR > values, it's just that they don't make it easy to use them. > > Until they get their standard interface fixed, it sounds like Microsoft > (or a 3rd party) could provide an alternative interface that > additionally stored the RRs in a separate database that would survive > the reboot, and included a service that ran at boot time that would > reload those additional RRs into the real database. > > Please correct me if I'm misunderstanding something here. > > Tony Hansen > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > > The statement made by Microsoft was that none of the Microsoft DNS > > servers have the ability to publish new RRs without breaking the > > administration model completely. In particular they have no > > administration tool for entering the RRs and no way to save them out. > > > > It is possible to enter RR values into the database by non standard > > administration interfaces but not by a method that survives a reboot. > > > > Given the amount of disinformation and the refusal of the DNS group to > > accept the statements made by Microsoft then I am not too inclined to > > accept heresay statements on the subject now. > > > > For deployment of a new RR to be possible it must be supported to > > production quality for the platform concerned. On the windows platform > > that means that it has to be possible to enter the RR through the > > standard administrative interface. > > > > > > There are a few changes in Windows 2003 R2. In particular the server can > > be configured to allow through DNSSEC records from other DNS servers and > > to accept zone transfers for unsupported records. I am unable to find a > > description of how to enter an unsupported RR through either the command > > line or GUI. > > > > On the plus size the default UDP packet size is 1260 bytes, not 512. If > > we are all so confident that new RRs will work then why does everyone > > (Olafur included) pay such strict attention to this particular limit? > > > > I think that what we are seeing here is more wishful thinking by people > > who are not going to be damaged by the consequences. If they can get us > > to make DKIM dependent on deployment of the infrastructure necessary to > > support new RRs then they don't have to do that job. > > _______________________________________________ > NOTE WELL: This list operates according to > http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html > _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
