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

> 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.
Regardless of the language you program in, you still have to get your proposal
approved. For that to happen the folks who review these things would in effect
be conceding that there is in fact a major deployment problem out there.

That's the point I was trying to make, not that people wouldn't argue for this
approach.

I am unaware of any counterexamples that have actually made it through the
process, but if they exist feel free to point them out.


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