cc:s trimmed. I'm not on the w3c list anyway, and I don't think the IESG cares about this detail. On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 04:58:36PM +0100, Patrik Fältström wrote: > > Because people disagree on whether it is actually hard to get new RRTYPEs deployed. > > I for example do completely disagree on it being hard. Sure, your user interface in the gui of your favorite $EDITOR might not support the new RRTYPE, but should that constrain deployment of good standards? > Before those who think DNS weenies never listen to real-world problems jump in, I want to point out what _I_ understand to be a problem. If you're a DNS geek, then the natural thing to think is, "This is easy. You just send a well-crafted UDP packet. How hard could that be? Once the typecode is assigned, what's the problem with sending an unknown RR?" If you're most application programmers, however, the entire conversation ended at "send a well-crafted UDP packet". Your libraries don't support injecting well-crafted UDP packets, and you have no idea how to do that, and it's incredibly stupid, and why would anyone think that was reasonable anyway? If you're most sysadmins, the entire conversation ended at "My tools don't know what TYPE1234 is." If we seriously think that DNS RRTYPEs ought to be useful extensions to people, we're going to have to make them _easy_ to deploy, not just possible. I have no idea how to solve this problem, though. Best, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf