Re: Context specific semantics was Re: uncooperative DNSBLs, was several messages

[John L <johnl at iecc.com>]

> > > context for the RRTYPE based on the zone of the query, which is not
> > > what the DNS currently uses for disambiguating the types of
> > > requests/responses.
> >
> > Didn't that plan go out the window in 1996 with RFC 2052?
>
> Sorry, what about SRV made RRTYPE not significant?  Sorry
> to be dense, but I don't understand your point here.

A SRV record with _tcp in its name means something different from a SRV 
query with _udp in its name.  I suppose you could argue that's different 
because _names are special, but the semantics are definitely in the name, 
not just in the RR.

> I believe Andrew and Olafur quite sensibly proposed that this change
> go forward with a transition to allow for increasing numbers of v6
> addresses.

You can do that if you want, but since there is no realistic scenario in 
which MTAs will handle v6 DNSBLs differently from v4 DNSBLs, I don't see 
the point in allocating an RR that will not in practice be used.

> The real damage might well occur when it leaks out of DNSBLs into the 
> next bright spark for web-based reputation or something similar.

I fear it is about 15 years too late to fight that battle.  There are 
already domain based DNSxLs, and they encode their stuff into A records.

R's,
John
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf