I would rather have a 6 month pushback from the IESG than a spec that is dependent on the next release of Windows Server to become viable.
The first does not delay deployment in the slightest. As far as I am concerned its damn the torpedoes. The second will mean as an absolute minimum waiting for a BIND product cycle and will require a much higher degree of support from ISPs and DNS Registrars. > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Crocker > I suggest that we explicitly solicit some discussion in the > meeting with both Security and DNS experts. We have made > some assumptions about what is likely to be acceptable to > each of those communities, yet I suspect we do not have much > feedback yet about their limits. > > (I suspect we are in quite good shape, with respect to the > Security folks, but I find myself worried about the DNS constituency.) > > So, for example, the DNS purists could well take exception to > the choice we have made for an initial TXT record, with a new > RR outside the critical path of -base. > > Montreal could give us some valuable insight into the likely > problems we will or will not have in getting -base approved. > > Alternatively, we could go through working group last call, > IETF last call, and IESG push-back. For any interesting > push-back, we are probably looking at delays in the range of > 6 months. (That estimate is, of course, not merely > theoretical.) _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
