Scott Kitterman wrote: > This draft mentions the posibility of requiring a new resource record type. > It isn't clear from the draft if the mention is in reference to the idea of > using a new RR type in parallel with TXT for some period or if the idea is > possibly deployment exclusively in the new RR type. > > If it's the latter, I think that this would be an extraordinarily bad idea. > In my opinion, if this protocol is going to require a new RR type to go > forward, it will never get deployed. > > Recommend a new requirement that the protocol MUST NOT depend solely on a new > DNS RR type just so there won't be any confusion on this. >
I would suggest that whatever approach SSP uses be consistent with what has been done with the base protocol. Eliot _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
