Hi Doug,
At 13:07 23-08-2013, Douglas Otis wrote:
The SPFbis document improperly conflates DNS terminology with
identical terms invented by this document. Examples are terms used
to describe mechanisms having the same identifier differentiated
between mechanisms and DNS resource records by usin
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 3:46 PM, manning bill wrote:
>
> the question is not that "nobody" checks type 99, the question is
> "is the rate of adoption
> of type 99 -changing- in relation to type 16?
>
As John pointed out, support for checking type 99 has decreased and
continues to
Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 3:46 PM, manning bill wrote:
the question is not that "nobody" checks type 99, the question is
"is the rate of adoption
of type 99 -changing- in relation to type 16?
As John pointed out, support for checking type 99 has dec
Hector Santos wrote:
Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
Putting a statement in an RFC does not mean that the world will
automatically advance towards that particular end state.
Thats correct. No one is forced to support RFC 4408bis. From my
perspective, there are four basic major changes to BIS - a
Hector Santos wrote:
>Hector Santos wrote:
>> Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
>>> Putting a statement in an RFC does not mean that the world will
>>> automatically advance towards that particular end state.
>>
>> Thats correct. No one is forced to support RFC 4408bis. From my
>> perspective, ther
Scott Kitterman wrote:
Hector Santos wrote:
I should add:
5- Deprecate PTR by removing PTR publishing support
We won't advocate this because for our small to mid size market, this
is the lowest cost setup for them - using a PTR. For all our domains,
we use PTR as well. No need to ch
On Saturday, August 24, 2013 13:10:09 Hector Santos wrote:
> Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > Hector Santos wrote:
> >> I should add:
> >> 5- Deprecate PTR by removing PTR publishing support
> >>
> >> We won't advocate this because for our small to mid size market, this
> >> is the lowest cost setu
Scott Kitterman wrote:
PS: I am not trying to change anything about the PTR 4408BIS status.
Just pointing out that a change was made that does touch base with
operations and thus not supporting (or delaying, forever) this part of
4408BIS is highly possible.
You might change what you recommend
