[mailto:ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of david repking
I'd be satisfied if the requirements draft were to say:
The protocol MUST NOT require use of a new DNS RR type.
The protocol
MAY allow for optional use of a new RR type.
And then nobody will use the new (optional) RR type, if
there's an alternative.
So what? Identify a negative consequence that will affect end users or network
administrators as a result.
IMHO, new types of data MUST require new types of RR
Why? All that the protocol requires is that the data types be unambiguously
represented. A prefix meets that need.
It is desirable to have support for wildcards. As has been explained a pointer
record meets this need much better.
If we would re-use RR types, why don't you wan't arbitrary
numeric values on A records (like telephone numers,
extensions, system IDs,
etc) ???
Actually we already have this proposal, its called ENUM.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html