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.
Didn't that plan go out the window in 1996 with RFC 2052?
Sorry, what about SRV made RRTYPE not significant? Sorry
to be dense, but I don't understand your point here.
A SRV record with _tcp in its name means something different from a SRV
query with _udp in its name. I suppose you could argue that's different
because _names are special, but the semantics are definitely in the name,
not just in the RR.
I believe Andrew and Olafur quite sensibly proposed that this change
go forward with a transition to allow for increasing numbers of v6
addresses.
You can do that if you want, but since there is no realistic scenario in
which MTAs will handle v6 DNSBLs differently from v4 DNSBLs, I don't see
the point in allocating an RR that will not in practice be used.
The real damage might well occur when it leaks out of DNSBLs into the
next bright spark for web-based reputation or something similar.
I fear it is about 15 years too late to fight that battle. There are
already domain based DNSxLs, and they encode their stuff into A records.
R's,
John
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf