At 13:06 -0500 2/24/12, Scott Kitterman wrote:
If there had been a TXT1 ... N in 2004, SPF (to put an example) could have
picked TXT1 (assuming it wasn't used by something else). Then later the label
could have been changed to SPF once usage was established and standardized.
Then a few years later, DomainKeys could have used TXT2 (or whatever) for it's
key records. As it was, a new rr type wasn't (AFAICT) given serious
consideration.
What is described here is a problem with registering the types rather
than getting the DNS protocol to handle the new types. Perhaps we
need the registry of types to have rudimentary parsing rules for the
type (a "flying car" dream).
The barrier to reserving a number was, at one time, undefined. Then
it was defined. (I can't say it's ever been lowered, but in a sense,
merely defining it lowers it.) Perhaps the barrier is still too high.
The fear is that if numbers are assigned too easily they will be
toyed with and discarded and someday we will run out. The fear is
that we cannot reclaim the numbers. If we can over come the latter
fear, the first should also disappear.
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis
NeuStar You can leave a voice message at +1-571-434-5468
2012...time to reuse those 1984 calendars!
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf