At 7:47 AM +0200 6/24/10, Patrik Fältström wrote: >Sure, but, support for unknown RR Types is said to be needed since long time back. And what API do not handle the ability to request an RR with a specific RRTYPE? > >int res_query(const char *dname, int class, int type, u_char *answer, int anslen); > >Anyway...this discussion has been held in the IETF I do not know how many times. Instead of writing another 10 lines of code (or whatever is needed) people fall back to existing RR Types, and not only that, define future protocols because of lack of #define for new RRTYPES. > >I know people have different views here, and I have one specific view ;-) As someone who normally has that "different view", I support a new RRTYPE in this case because the option of reusing SRV is not sufficient: it requires DNS-SRV-followed-by-HTTP. I think a new RRTYPE that keeps the DNS lookup entirely in the DNS protocol far outweighs reusing SRV but requiring HTTP on both sides. --Paul Hoffman, Director --VPN Consortium _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf