On Tue, 21 Nov 2006, Keith Moore wrote:
p.s. rather than adding more and more burdens to DNS, what we really need to
be doing is figuring out how to replace it with something more robust and
more flexible. (Yes, you'd have to arrange that DNS queries and queries to
the new database would return consistent results; you'd also have to make
sure that DNSSEC didn't break, but those are both doable.)
DNS is getting very long in the tooth, and is entirely too inflexible and too
fragile. The very fact that we're having a discussion about whether it makes
more sense to add a new RR type or use TXT records with DKIM is a clear
indicator that something seriously is wrong with DNS. Adding a new RR type
should not require a single line of DNS server or client library code to be
recompiled, nor any changes to the configuration of any server not
advertising such records.
Keith,
I've seen you say this for many years now, but I'll bite now.
Do you have ideas what a more flexible, less fragile, and in
general a better mechanism would:
1) be or look like, or
2) what requirements we should have for building and deploying it?
(if such a thing or a close likeness doesn't exist)
I wonder if there are practical alternatives. A bit more dialogue on
"what else" instead of "DNS is a bad idea" might help in figuring out
whether there is anything the IETF could do about it.
--
Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf