On Sunday 15 October 2006 16:13, Eliot Lear wrote: > 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. > +1.
Scott K _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
