Eliot Lear wrote:
Bob,
This contradicts Section 2.1 of RFDC 1123, which says an application
SHOULD support literal addresses (and of course DNS support is a MUST) --
Section 6.1.1.)
Within the application space, which is what we were talking about with
RFC 1123, I'd have to say that the times have changed. Back in 1989 DNS
was still relatively unproven, failures were common, and there was a
need to be able to get around DNS.
In my experience, DNS failures are still common. Most of those failures
are probably due to misconfiguration of some sort or another (e.g.
failure to decrease TTLs in advance of an address change, particularly
when that address is in an NS record). But to the application, it still
looks like a DNS failure.
Worse, use of literals in applications leads to their being placed in
configuration files, and that's just bad juju in a dynamic world.
We're a LONG way from getting rid of literals in configuration files.
We're a LONG way from a world where IP addresses can change at a whim.
I'm not saying that DNS is perfect by any stretch, but the alternative is
worse.
Still, I don't think John is suggesting that we prohibit applications
from supporting literals. I personally just think we shouldn't
highlight such examples.
I think examples involving literals are fine, as long as we state that
they're expected to be used only in exceptional cases.
Keith
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf