> From: Hector Santos [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Follow the MARID May/2004 "Wild Card MXes" Thread at: > > http://www.mhonarc.org/archive/html/ietf-mxcomp/2004-05/msg00504.html > http://www.mhonarc.org/archive/html/ietf-mxcomp/2004-05/msg00461.html > > Bob Atkinson seems to explain in detail. Olafur and co are much better at demanding data from others than providing it themselves. My bigger complaint here is that this is one case where we know that significant deployment problems are being swept under the carpet. This calls into question their claims with respect to UNIX deployment of BIND. Experience on the phishing side of the house strongly suggests that there are a lot of very old BIND servers out there. If people write a spec that does not make explicit description of how an extension mechanism should work and provide detailed implementation guidance to ensure interoperability they should not be allowed to later claim that this is the only conceivable, only allowable extension mechanism for the protocol. If DKIM deploys then DNSSEC will be pulled along in its wake which in turn will drag deployment of the extension mechanism. Making deployment of the extension mechanism a necessary deployment condition creates a cycle of ungranted requests, in other words a deadlock.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html