[Top] [All Lists]

Re: new DNS classes

2017-07-07 11:37:57
On Fri, Jul 07, 2017 at 08:09:30AM -0700, Paul Vixie wrote:
Nico Williams wrote:

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.

that would be a prior restraint, and bad for innovation. just like middle
boxes or the nearly universal assumption that ip means tcp or udp. i know
this kind of thinking is common. but there is a stark choice for all of us:
do all of our future protocol work on tcp/80 and make everything fit in
JSON, so that we can get our work done; or keep doing what the internet used
to mean, and eventually put enough stress on middle box makers, isp's, and
in your case dns hosting services, that they have to learn about the
internet rather than just the web.

i know which future i'd rather live in. i also feel in-year pressure to get
my work done. i vacillate as to who gets to receive which burdens.

I'm with you on this.  I badly want to be able to use new RR types
without further ado.  I would prefer to push on the middleboxes and
middlepeople -- but we need to do a better job of this altogether so
that we don't have to wait a decade.  We don't have a spec police, so
all we can do is nag.


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>