![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
On Nov 22, 2006, at 7:42 AM, Pekka Savola wrote:
On Tue, 21 Nov 2006, Keith Moore wrote:
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.
Keith,
I've seen you say this for many years now, but I'll bite now. Do you have ideas what a more flexible, less fragile, and in general a better mechanism would:
1) be or look like, or
2) what requirements we should have for building and deploying it? (if such a thing or a close likeness doesn't exist)
I wonder if there are practical alternatives. A bit more dialogue on "what else" instead of "DNS is a bad idea" might help in figuring out whether there is anything the IETF could do about it.
A fun site that reviews this topic: http://www.ppcn.net/n1358c38.aspx
-Doug
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf at ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.