On Saturday 02 June 2007 13:02, Steve Atkins wrote: > On Jun 2, 2007, at 9:40 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > > On Saturday 02 June 2007 12:27, Steve Atkins wrote: > >> So if the spec states "SSP clients must query for new RR first, then > >> TXT" you wouldn't expect most receivers to comply with that? > > > > Eventually, if the new RR type gets some deployment. > > The original statement by Arvel (which Hector agreed with) was: > > If we come out with a spec that states "SSP clients must query for > > new RR first, then TXT" senders would be right to expect compliance. > > I do not see how this statement can be true for, at least, several > years. Hence my question to Arvel and Hector - is this statement > false, or are they assuming SSP deployment will wait until widespread > adoption of a new RR. > I think the entire point of having TXT is to get deployment started soon.
I don't think that mandating checking the new RR type will do much to get it deployed. If it's going to get deployed, it has to have an advantage. If wildcards are an important use case, then it'll get deployed. In the meantime, I don't see the value in mandating checking the new RR type first. This is particularly true since there are deployed resovlers that don't reply at all to unknown RR Types. You'd have to wait for a timeout and then query TXT. That would not help message delivery timelines. Scott K _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
