Re: SRV records considered dubious

[Keith Moore <moore at cs.utk.edu>]

> 	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.

maybe I've missed it, but is there a standard way of extending the text 
format of zone files to recognize new RRs without recompiling the 
server?  and is there a standard way to distribute machine-readable 
definitions of new RR types?

(of course there are lots of other reasons to look for a replacement for 
DNS even if the new RR type problem is solved, but that doesn't mean the 
new RR type problem shouldn't be solved)


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