In message <20170707055315.GC3393@localhost>, Nico Williams writes:
On Fri, Jul 07, 2017 at 07:52:36AM +1000, Mark Andrews wrote:
In message <20170706153955.GB3393@localhost>, Nico Williams writes:
So new classes will only be useful to extend the IN-class RR type
namespace. We won't get there. New RR types can be very difficult to
deploy due to lack of interest by registrars and domain hosting
services. TXT RRs forever. :(
Or you could stop trying to reinforce the myth that new RR types
are hard to deploy. They really aren't. They actually get used
all the time.
I'm well aware that as to clients and servers, deploying new RR types is
easy. The hard part is the management backend and UIs. Not all of them
allow you to enter raw RDATA (hex-encoded or whatever).
We've struggled with this in KITTEN WG. Deploying the URI RR type when
you're using a hosting service can be anywhere from annoying (must enter
raw RDATA) to impossible (the hosting service doesn't give a damn). I
suppose it's just a matter of time; perhaps things have improved since
we last looked.
Then change domain hosting providers and tell them why or run you
own master server or use a service which allows for dynamic updates
which shouldn't care about the record types. There are plenty of
DNS providers that will slave content.
As a DNS server vendor we get requests to add the new type within
days the type being allocated. We usually already have code written
and merged to support the new type in all current branches before
those request come in as we poll the type registry daily. It is
available over git to anyone that wants to pull it down support for
the new type prior to the next maintainence releases. Adding a new
type is as simple as adding to files to the source tree and rebuilding
the tools. Once that is done all the tools we ship support it.
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka(_at_)isc(_dot_)org