+1
As an implementator of all these new mouse trap protocols with TXT
based solutions, some borrowing the same namespace, some using
different namespaces, it doesn't escape me to continue getting the
utopian idea (ignoring the technical issues) that it will be "sweet"
if they all can be collected under one single DNS call.
Edward Lewis wrote:
At 13:06 -0500 2/24/12, Scott Kitterman wrote:
If there had been a TXT1 ... N in 2004, SPF (to put an example) could
have
picked TXT1 (assuming it wasn't used by something else). Then later
the label
could have been changed to SPF once usage was established and
standardized.
Then a few years later, DomainKeys could have used TXT2 (or whatever)
for it's
key records. As it was, a new rr type wasn't (AFAICT) given serious
consideration.
What is described here is a problem with registering the types rather
than getting the DNS protocol to handle the new types. Perhaps we need
the registry of types to have rudimentary parsing rules for the type (a
"flying car" dream).
The barrier to reserving a number was, at one time, undefined. Then it
was defined. (I can't say it's ever been lowered, but in a sense,
merely defining it lowers it.) Perhaps the barrier is still too high.
The fear is that if numbers are assigned too easily they will be toyed
with and discarded and someday we will run out. The fear is that we
cannot reclaim the numbers. If we can over come the latter fear, the
first should also disappear.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf