Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with

ned+ietf(_at_)mauve(_dot_)mrochek(_dot_)com wrote:

> > Given that, designers of new RR types will want to stick to string
> > formats just to spare ISPs some parsing, at the cost of losing a half
> > of the advantages that RFC 5507 talks about, along with syntactic
> > validations aimed at preventing some permerror/permfail cases.
> Doubtful. If a record needs to have, say, a priority field, or a port number,
> given the existence of MX, SRV, and various other RRs it's going to be very
> difficult for the designers of said field to argue that that should be done as
> ASCII text that has to be parsed out to use.
>
> More generally, this is trying to have things both ways. We can't
> simultaneously assert that deploying simple new RRs is a breeze, making this
> unnnecessary, and that it's so difficult that everything should be crammed into
> TXT Format no matter the actual structure is.
Whats missing from all this is whether a TXT based protocol 
application can successfully pass all IETF/IESG and DNS community 
reveals, full endorsement and move to Internet Status.  Sounds like 
isn't an issue any more with the aggressive push with protocols like 
DKIM and other TXT only proposed standard protocols.
That was what I was trying to get out of all this.  What is the new 
developer going to think when he invents the next DNS application? 
Which approach does he use for greater endorsement?
--
HLS
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf