Alessandro Vesely wrote:
On 24/Feb/12 19:06, Scott Kitterman wrote:
On Friday, February 24, 2012 12:57:49 PM Andrew Sullivan wrote:
I'd give them all a format of text and if a protocol needs something more
specific than that it can interpret it at the application level.
How could you integrate a pre-allocated type when you don't know what
its format is? If you knew how to do that, you could just deal with
unknown RRTPYEs, and then having TYPE99 wouldn't be a problem anyway.
Publishing RRs requires proper formatting, though. In most cases,
tools could work equally well without knowing whether a type is
registered or not. They could rely upon symbolic specifications, see
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-levine-dnsextlang/ , leaving it
to sysadmins to install official specs.
I am extremely interested to know how RFC3597 "Handling of Unknown DNS
Resource Record (RR) Types" is viewed today as a still ongoing
Back around that time from (up to around 2007/2008), I would never
even bother with any protocol consideration using new RR types or more
specifically, allows the publishing with a high confidence the
passthru recursive necessary would be feasibly successful.
I would like to poise this general question to the IETF/DNS community:
Given higher modern DNS server support for unnamed types, should
new protocols continues to pursue new RR types or does the
DNS Community believe this original infrastructure ideal is no longer
necessary and new protocols can use TXT records with a high
degree of DNS support confidence for robustness.
Many new protocols use the TXT records simply as a fast entry, high
support mechanism to store data on DNS. Is the mindset today such
that this is still desirable, is there an DNS impact with this on
Consider the point of view of a developer exploring a new protocol,
should he focus on using TXT only and now sweat any IETF/DNS community
endorsement or should he/she also include a considering for a new RR
type in the design?
Santronics Software, Inc.
Ietf mailing list