----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Fenton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org>
> - There is only a small deployment of SSP records at this point > - There are good reasons for going to a new RR > - Unlike key records, there's no way to advertise whether to do a TXT or > "new RR" query for SSP > > it seems like there are good reasons to accelerate the definition and > adoption a new RR for SSP. In its most terse form, the "practices" > could mostly be defined as a number of independent, one-bit values. In > any case, spending a lot of time on a definition that assumes TXT > records doesn't seem productive. During MARID, it is was my understanding that non-active directory versions of Microsoft DNS servers do no support the addition of new RR records and during MARID this was one primary reason for sticking with TXT (besides its obvious simplicity). Is this correct? If so, it is important? -- Hector Santos, Santronics Software, Inc. http://www.santronics.com _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
