Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with

� wrote:
> On 3 mar 2012, at 16:56, ned+ietf(_at_)mauve(_dot_)mrochek(_dot_)com wrote:
>
> > Doubtful. If a record needs to have, say, a priority field, or a port number,
> > given the existence of MX, SRV, and various other RRs it's going to be very
> > difficult for the designers of said field to argue that that should be done as
> > ASCII text that has to be parsed out to use.
> Agree with you but too many people today "just" program in perl och python 
> where the parsing is just a cast or similar, and they do not understand 
> this argument of yours -- which I once again completely stand behind myself.
The original version of Sender-ID (Caller ID Policy) was an XML 
version of SPF. In fact, the experimental record still exist:
   nslookup -query=txt _ep.hotmail.com

   "<ep xmlns='http://ms.net/1' testing='true'>
    <out><m><indirect>list1._ep.hotmail.com</indirect>
    <indirect>list2._ep.hotmail.com</indirect>
    <indirect>list3._ep.hotmail.com</indirect></m></out></ep>"

It was introductions like this that raised eyebrows and the need to 
include a new RR type with the simpler language SPF TXT fallback for 
SPF and SENDER-ID.
If TXT becomes the acceptable norm, than perhaps the XML format cane 
easily be reconsidered for a DNS TXT storage with a common XML I/O 
construct. :(
--
HLS
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf