At 11:23 AM -0800 11/13/08, Tony Finch wrote:
On Thu, 13 Nov 2008, Ted Hardie wrote:
Thanks for the pointer. I had missed this technical comment in the
crowd, and I think it is very important indeed. By re-using RRs with
context-specific semantics, the proposal does serious harm to
interoperability.
Is there any evidence for that?
Tony.
--
f.anthony.n.finch <dot(_at_)dotat(_dot_)at> http://dotat.at/
VIKING NORTH UTSIRE SOUTH UTSIRE: SOUTHERLY OR SOUTHWESTERLY 5 TO 7,
OCCASIONALLY GALE 8 IN NORTH UTSIRE AT FIRST, AND PERHAPS GALE 8 IN VIKING
LATER. ROUGH OR VERY ROUGH. RAIN. MODERATE OR GOOD, OCCASIONALLY POOR.
The draft currently says:
DNSxLs also MAY contain an A record at the apex of the DNSxL zone
that points to a web server, so that anyone wishing to learn about
the bad.example.net DNSBL can check http://bad.example.net.
That's an example in which an A record in this zone has the standard DNS meaning
and the expectation is that you can use it construct a URI. The other A
records have
a specific meaning in which the data returned indicates that indicates
something about
its reputation in a specific context (what reputation etc. being context
specific). One
of these things is not like the other. Using the same record type for both
creates
a need to generate some other context that enables you to figure out what was
really meant.
The whole approach here is "An A record in this zone has a meaning different
from
the meaning in other zones". That creates a DNS context for the RRTYPE based
on
the zone of the query, which is not what the DNS currently uses for
disambiguating
the types of requests/responses. Using a different RR type puts you back into
the standard way of doing things.
regards,
Ted Hardie
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf