On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 11:00 PM, John Levine <johnl(_at_)taugh(_dot_)com> wrote:
d.e.f.theory..?
EGRAINSIZE: variable (long TTL)
I think that if you're proposing any changes at all to the existing
DNS protocol, it'd be easier to invent something new that handles
the situation directly.
Also remember that the DNSSEC protocol, if not current DNSSEC
implementations, already do nearly all of what we want.
I'm not doing that. I'm proposing an alteration of your granularity
proposal (as I understand it) that doesn't require either TXT records
or DNSSEC. You were proposing a change to the existing RxL protocol,
right? The flaw seemed to be that using your proposal (as I understood
it) each RxL provider had to provide a uniform granularity for the
universe, represented in the _granularity.provider.. TXT record.
If your proposal was a straw man to promote adoption of DNSSEC, well
then I'm resisting that.
--
“The aeroplane is fatally defective. It is merely a toy—a sporting
play-thing. It can never become commercially practical." -- Nikola
Tesla
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)irtf(_dot_)org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg