Re: DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with
2012-02-27 14:30:58
On 27 feb 2012, at 21:19, Hector wrote:
Thanks Patrick.
Is there an element, or include, the "Simplicity" argument that has been
presented to you?
Thats the feeling I am getting - Fast entry, don' sweat the DNS impact and
today, its high OS/software, DB speeds and overall robustness is good enough.
Once upon a time, the idea of redundancy (calls) was a concern, at least
that seem to be the general mindset, but over time, I have seen statements
that we shouldn't worry about it - just do it! Better caching resolves much
of the redundancy related overhead concerns.
PS: I agree with your position.
The arguments I hear are I think very unfortunate, but I of course understand
them. They include for example:
- GUI (as in actual web interface or such) does not support the RRType
Example: Many DNS hosting providers do not allow even NAPTR or SRV RRTypes
today. Even fewer URI or SPF.
- Code in for example bind and other name server software do not support the
new RRType
Example: Even if one use Emacs, VI or whatever else txt tool one have to add
the RR using hex which for complicated RRTypes might be very hard to calculate.
- The protocol used in clients is not DNS
Example: The actual lookup can only be of data that is proxied to various
RRTypes that are "known"
- Local software do not handle new RRTypes
Example: Programmer want to use some resolver library that only support a
subset of RRTypes that exists, and to use other RRTypes one must use "unknown"
RRType or be able to at least enumerate exactly the #id of the RRType itself,
and then parse the raw data that comes back.
- Firewall software do not handle new RRTypes
Example: Deep packet inspection of DNS flow(s) do only allow certain DNS
RRTypes to pass through
...and more...
I do though think limiting us to certain types will have impact not only for
effective use of HTTP and other protocols (I think we need SRV, URI etc), but
also have impact on for example deployment of DNSSEC.
The first (successful) step was to ensure DNS core software do understand
"unknown RRTypes" which I claim is now deployed "in the core". Edge is still
questionable (see above).
I do not want to give up proper deployment though. I just do not do that.
Some people with very old software that can not be updated will loose. They
will not get the new features new RRTypes can give.
Yes, a pain. But...we just must be able to get new RRTypes deployed. And not
give up.
Patrik
I would like to poise this general question to the IETF/DNS community:
Given higher modern DNS server support for unnamed types, should
new protocols continues to pursue new RR types or does the
DNS Community believe this original infrastructure ideal is no longer
necessary and new protocols can use TXT records with a high
degree of DNS support confidence for robustness.
Many new protocols use the TXT records simply as a fast entry, high support
mechanism to store data on DNS. Is the mindset today such that this is
still desirable, is there an DNS impact with this on going direction?
I have not heard anything else than arguments in RFC5507 against reusing
same RRType for many different kind of use.
5507 Design Choices When Expanding the DNS. IAB, P. Faltstrom, Ed., R.
Austein, Ed., P. Koch, Ed.. April 2009. (Format: TXT=44045 bytes)
(Status: INFORMATIONAL)
So, still, no, you should not reuse TXT. You should have your own RRType.
Other choices makes your design very complex.
Yes, many people will still disagree with me, using arguments I do not agree
with...
Patrik
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
<Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread>
|
- Re: DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, (continued)
- Re: DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, John R. Levine
- Re: DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, Scott Kitterman
- Re: DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, John Levine
- Re: DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, John Leslie
- Re: DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, Hector
- Re: DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, Hector
- Re: DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with,
Patrik Fältström <=
- Re: DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, Hector
- Re: DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, Alessandro Vesely
- Re: DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with (was: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis)), Mark Andrews
- Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis), Doug Barton
|
|
|