RE: I-D ACTION:draft-iab-dns-choices-00.txt

["Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker@verisign.com>]

> > So you are referring to a proposal that isn't being made
> > rather than the proposal that has been made.
> > 
> > So now we have that sorted out we can take it that your
> > objections are withdrawn or can at any rate be ignored.
> 
> 	No.  Even with a prefix you still have the sub-type problem.
> 
> 	With a prefix you have the problem that you can't implement
> 	this with every possible mta name. 

What on earth do you mean here? If you mean that it uses 
underscores its irrelevant now, the underscore is unusable 
for A record names due to the infrastructure.

Grow up.

>    You have the problem that
> 	it doesn't work with wildcards (your own admission). 

No, I said that the wildcard support does not work according
to the requirements for any extension mechanism, including
new RRs. You have to fix the servers with a macro capability 
either way.


Compared to the fact that 50% of the DNS infrastructure does 
not support new RRs in any shape or form these problems are 
minor and irrelevant.

> 	You started with the premise that adding a new type would
> 	take a long time and looked for a solution that didn't
> 	involve a new type.  I think I have proved that your initial
> 	premise was based on FUD.  

No, you did nothing of the sort.

>  It can be also demonstated that
> 	a new type is a technically superior solution to sub-type /
> 	prefix.

Assertion and restatement of assertion does not constitute
an argument.



--
to unsubscribe send a message to namedroppers-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>