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

In message <D468354F-BE26-41D4-9F75-EA10C5189B73(_at_)frobbit(_dot_)se>, 
=?iso-8859-1?Q?Pa
trik_F=E4ltstr=F6m?= writes:
> On 7 mar 2012, at 03:49, John R. Levine wrote:
>
> > > However we do have standard presentation/entry formats defined and a good
> > > front end will accept those as well.
> > Sigh.  Now we're back to "people who don't do it my way are wrong", so I gu
> ess we're done.
>
> I disagree.
>
> "People who don't accept the standardized zone format are wrong" is Mark's st
> atement.
>
> What you say is "as people do not support the standardized zone format as inp
> ut, what do we do".
>
>    Patrik
The point of RFC 3597 was to provide a STANDARD text representation
that could handle any DNS record format.  It isn't pretty but as
long as you accept it and emit it you are future proof.  Its a
lowest common format.

            A 1.2.3.4 == TYPE1 \# 4 01020304

Most provisioning systems really don't care about most of the data
they are throwing about.  It may as well be a opaque blob.

Pretty is for the next revision of the provisioning software.  Look
at what data you have in raw format and use that to decide what you
need to handle in a prettier manner in the next revision.  You don't
even need to to change the database tables.  It's just front end
presentation that needs to be changed.

Mark
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: marka(_at_)isc(_dot_)org
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf