I have to agree 100% here Philip. My recollection of the issue was related to Active Directory (AD)visions versus the non-Active Directory versions. For example, we don't use AD, so this might be an issue for us. I believe there were some example shown where Windows DNS IP Helper API (iphlpapi.dll) and/or it was not available on all platforms. But I didn't remember the specifics.
Anyway, I brought it up because last week you did point it out and it seemed this critical point was missed. But I have a few more bald spots on my head understanding why it is being discussed when we can't even get over the hump with Mike's compatibility concerns. :-) Doesn't make sense. -- Hector Santos, Santronics Software, Inc. http://www.santronics.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > The statement made by Microsoft was that none of the Microsoft DNS servers > have the ability to publish new RRs without breaking the administration > model completely. In particular they have no administration tool for > entering the RRs and no way to save them out. > > It is possible to enter RR values into the database by non standard > administration interfaces but not by a method that survives a reboot. > > Given the amount of disinformation and the refusal of the DNS group to > accept the statements made by Microsoft then I am not too inclined to accept > heresay statements on the subject now. > > For deployment of a new RR to be possible it must be supported to production > quality for the platform concerned. On the windows platform that means that > it has to be possible to enter the RR through the standard administrative > interface. > > > There are a few changes in Windows 2003 R2. In particular the server can be > configured to allow through DNSSEC records from other DNS servers and to > accept zone transfers for unsupported records. I am unable to find a > description of how to enter an unsupported RR through either the command > line or GUI. > > On the plus size the default UDP packet size is 1260 bytes, not 512. If we > are all so confident that new RRs will work then why does everyone (Olafur > included) pay such strict attention to this particular limit? > > I think that what we are seeing here is more wishful thinking by people who > are not going to be damaged by the consequences. If they can get us to make > DKIM dependent on deployment of the infrastructure necessary to support new > RRs then they don't have to do that job. > _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
