It should have been a new RRTYPE, [...]
[...]
I had some offline e-mail and it turns out to be just another
religious war. In the IETF DNS community, the orthodox belief is
that there are no important barriers to adding new RR types. In
particular, all those crummy web management systems that can barely
handle the existing RRTYPEs don't exist or don't matter.
Perhaps it's heretical of me, but _for DNSBLs_, I don't see why they
would matter. You don't use "those crummy web management systems" for
DNSBLs, after all.
Well, unless you're trying to run a DNSBL and you're outsourcing your
DNS service to someone who makes you use one of them, I suppose, but I
have trouble seeing that as being close enough to practical to be worth
caring about. Am I wrong? Are there known to be DNSBLs being run that
way?
If there were a son-of-DNSBL that published more complex information,
e.g., if we figure out reputation well enough to understand what a
generally useful reputation record containing more than one bit would
contain,
Aren't there already DNSBLs that provide either a bitmask with no more
than a few dozen bits, or a small integer - ie, "more than one bit" -
transmitted as an A record?
/~\ The ASCII Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
X Against HTML mouse(_at_)rodents-montreal(_dot_)org
/ \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)irtf(_dot_)org
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg