Re: DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with

+1

As an implementator of all these new mouse trap protocols with TXT 
based solutions, some borrowing the same namespace, some using 
different namespaces, it doesn't escape me to continue getting the 
utopian idea (ignoring the technical issues) that it will be "sweet" 
if they all can be collected under one single DNS call.


Edward Lewis wrote:
> 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.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf