Re: SRV records considered dubious (was: Re: DNS Choices: Was: [ietf-dkim] Re: Last Call: 'DomainKeys)

[Mark Andrews <Mark_Andrews at isc.org>]

> DNS is getting very long in the tooth, and is entirely too inflexible 
> and too fragile.  The very fact that we're having a discussion about 
> whether it makes more sense to add a new RR type or use TXT records with 
> DKIM is a clear indicator that something seriously is wrong with DNS. 
> Adding a new RR type should not require a single line of DNS server or 
> client library code to be recompiled, nor any changes to the 
> configuration of any server not advertising such records.

	No.  It just means that the people spreading FUD have succeeded.

	RFC 3597 (2003) formalised the handling of unknown RR types
	and classes.  The first draft was written in 2000 and it
	described treating unknown RR's as opaque data blobs.

	RFC 2535 (1999) (DNSSEC) depended upon unknown RR types being
	being treated as opaque blobs.  While it didn't explictly ban
	the use of compression pointers in new types it was known not
	to use compression in new RR types.

	RFC 1035 even attempted to get unknown RR's treated as
	opaque data blobs.  Unfortunately the description of where
	compression could be used was flawed.

	I really don't know why we are arguing about this anymore.
	Adding new RR's has not been a real issue this millenia.

	Mark
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: Mark_Andrews at isc.org

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf