On Monday 16 October 2006 10:21, Stephen Farrell wrote: > So I'd suggest that we leave this issue [2] open for now, and come > back to the topic when we've got a concrete protocol on which we > can base the discussion. > > Does that sound ok for now? > If that's the best I can get, OK.
I was serious when I said that if we are going to have to cut and deploy a new RR type for SSP we may as well stop now. By the time that happens the internet ecosphere will have routed around the protocol. >From my perspective a new RR type is a showstopper problem. I'm not sure what a more concrete proposal for a new RR type might do to change that. However you want to handle it is fine though, Scott K _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
