At 7:47 AM +0200 6/24/10, Patrik Fältström wrote:
Sure, but, support for unknown RR Types is said to be needed since long time
back. And what API do not handle the ability to request an RR with a specific
RRTYPE?
int res_query(const char *dname, int class, int type, u_char *answer, int
anslen);
Anyway...this discussion has been held in the IETF I do not know how many
times. Instead of writing another 10 lines of code (or whatever is needed)
people fall back to existing RR Types, and not only that, define future
protocols because of lack of #define for new RRTYPES.
I know people have different views here, and I have one specific view ;-)
As someone who normally has that "different view", I support a new RRTYPE in
this case because the option of reusing SRV is not sufficient: it requires
DNS-SRV-followed-by-HTTP. I think a new RRTYPE that keeps the DNS lookup
entirely in the DNS protocol far outweighs reusing SRV but requiring HTTP on
both sides.
--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf