Re: DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with

On Feb 27, 2012, at 11:57 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org 
> > [mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Patrik Fältström
> > Sent: Monday, February 27, 2012 11:43 AM
> > To: Hector
> > Cc: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
> > Subject: Re: DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with
> >
> > 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...
> The conclusion of Section 3.5 of that document doesn't really address the 
> first bullet in the same section, namely that the user interface by which the 
> new RRType would get added to a zone often doesn't support doing so.  That's 
> turned out to be a serious problem with, for example, the deployment of the 
> SPF record (RRType 99).
Which user interfaces are people using to add RRtype 99? If you are having them 
edit zone files by hand well, yes, that would not work real well for SPF. If 
there is a simple tool that takes the needed information and create a 
standard-formatted record that can be copy-and-pasted, it would make use of 
that RRtype much easier. If no such tool exists, I propose that it can be 
created easily.

--Paul Hoffman

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