[email protected]
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: SRV records considered dubious

Subject: Re: SRV records considered dubious
From: Mark Andrews
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 17:00:35 +1100
> >     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?

        Yes.  See RFC 3597.

        See also RFC 4701 which shows the DHCID RR in both the
        generic format and the type specific format.

> and is there a standard way to distribute machine-readable 
> definitions of new RR types?

        No.  Then again we keep coming up with new methods of
        encoding data.  Early adoptors of new RR's just need to be
        able to handle a binary blob of data.  Most (all) dns
        libraries have methods to extact domain names, etc. from
        the binary blobs.
> (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)
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: [email protected]

Ietf mailing list
[email protected]

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>