--Andrew Newton <andy(_at_)hxr(_dot_)us> wrote:
In order to reach consensus on the issue of wildcards, we would like
working group participants to answer the following questions. Please
read through them first before responding.
1) During the MARID interim meeting, Ted Hardie suggested a dual record
type approach whereby TXT would be used in servers incapable of
supporting a new record type, but more capable servers would use a new
record type (specifically defined for MARID). Do you feel this is a
workable solution? (Reference Margaret Olson's description here:
Yes, TXT for now, new RR later.
2) Do you feel a MARID solution needs the capability of DNS wildcards?
YES. There was a lot of debate about this and "why do you need wildcards?"
Interesting and creative solutions aside, there is still one case where a
wildcard LMAP record is very necessary: where there are already wildcard A
or MX records in existence. This is the one case where wildcards are
definitely needed. There may be others, but this is a solid enough one.
3) If you answered "yes" to both of the above questions, then is it
reasonable to expect DNS wildcard capability only with the new record
type and not the TXT usage (because TXT may be defined to use a prefix)?
No, this is not acceptable to me. Given the huge amount of debate about
wildcards, I am surprised to find almost NO debate about the issue of
prefixes. With wildcards, those against it were saying "Do you really need
it? Prove it." and those who feel they need it were expected to explain
themselves. Prefixes never got a fraction of that much consideration or
Recall that Ed's presentation clearly stated that there were notable
problems with ALL workaround methods, overloading a type AND using
prefixes. Neither is ideal, but this is not an ideal world. I think the
research clearly shows that TXT records are not deployed widely enough, and
the data is not nearly large enough, to cause any conficts. This is not
surprising, since there is NO real intended application for TXT records
originally and no significant application that actually uses them either,
that I know of.
So... I don't like prefixes and I think they create more (real) problems
than the (imagined) problem they (try to) solve. Further, I think it will
make the implementations cleaner if the rr type is to change later, if we
leave the target name/label and contents of the data the same.
4) If you answered "no" to either (1) or (2), then do you feel it is
acceptable for TXT reuse to specify a prefix and that environments
needing DNS wildcard behavior may do so at the risk of collision or other
http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/mail-archive/msg01691.html for discussion
Greg Connor <gconnor(_at_)nekodojo(_dot_)org>