At 11:23 AM -0800 11/13/08, Tony Finch wrote: >On Thu, 13 Nov 2008, Ted Hardie wrote: >> >> Thanks for the pointer. I had missed this technical comment in the >> crowd, and I think it is very important indeed. By re-using RRs with >> context-specific semantics, the proposal does serious harm to >> interoperability. > >Is there any evidence for that? > >Tony. >-- >f.anthony.n.finch <dot@xxxxxxxx> http://dotat.at/ >VIKING NORTH UTSIRE SOUTH UTSIRE: SOUTHERLY OR SOUTHWESTERLY 5 TO 7, >OCCASIONALLY GALE 8 IN NORTH UTSIRE AT FIRST, AND PERHAPS GALE 8 IN VIKING >LATER. ROUGH OR VERY ROUGH. RAIN. MODERATE OR GOOD, OCCASIONALLY POOR. The draft currently says: DNSxLs also MAY contain an A record at the apex of the DNSxL zone that points to a web server, so that anyone wishing to learn about the bad.example.net DNSBL can check http://bad.example.net. That's an example in which an A record in this zone has the standard DNS meaning and the expectation is that you can use it construct a URI. The other A records have a specific meaning in which the data returned indicates that indicates something about its reputation in a specific context (what reputation etc. being context specific). One of these things is not like the other. Using the same record type for both creates a need to generate some other context that enables you to figure out what was really meant. The whole approach here is "An A record in this zone has a meaning different from the meaning in other zones". That creates a DNS 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. Using a different RR type puts you back into the standard way of doing things. regards, Ted Hardie _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf