Re: [Asrg] I-D Action: draft-irtf-asrg-dnsbl-08.txt (fwd)

[der Mouse <mouse at Rodents-Montreal.ORG>]

>>> It should have been a new RRTYPE, [...]
>> [...]
> I had some offline e-mail and it turns out to be just another
> religious war.  In the IETF DNS community, the orthodox belief is
> that there are no important barriers to adding new RR types.  In
> particular, all those crummy web management systems that can barely
> handle the existing RRTYPEs don't exist or don't matter.

Perhaps it's heretical of me, but _for DNSBLs_, I don't see why they
would matter.  You don't use "those crummy web management systems" for
DNSBLs, after all.

Well, unless you're trying to run a DNSBL and you're outsourcing your
DNS service to someone who makes you use one of them, I suppose, but I
have trouble seeing that as being close enough to practical to be worth
caring about.  Am I wrong?  Are there known to be DNSBLs being run that
way?

> If there were a son-of-DNSBL that published more complex information,
> e.g., if we figure out reputation well enough to understand what a
> generally useful reputation record containing more than one bit would
> contain,

Aren't there already DNSBLs that provide either a bitmask with no more
than a few dozen bits, or a small integer - ie, "more than one bit" -
transmitted as an A record?

/~\ The ASCII				  Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
 X  Against HTML		mouse at rodents-montreal.org
/ \ Email!	     7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39  4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg at irtf.org
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg