In message <3503462.Q2aCvq3QGU@scott-latitude-e6320>, Scott Kitterman writes: > On Monday, February 27, 2012 12:32:11 PM Paul Hoffman wrote: > > On Feb 27, 2012, at 11:57 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf > > >> Of Patrik F=E4ltstr=F6m Sent: Monday, February 27, 2012 11:43 AM > > >> To: Hector > > >> Cc: ietf@xxxxxxxx > > >> Subject: Re: DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with > > >> = > > > >> I have not heard anything else than arguments in RFC5507 against > > >> reusing same RRType for many different kind of use. > > >> = > > > >> 5507 Design Choices When Expanding the DNS. IAB, P. Faltstrom, Ed., R. > > >> = > > > >> Austein, Ed., P. Koch, Ed.. April 2009. (Format: TXT=3D44045 > > >> bytes) > > >> (Status: INFORMATIONAL) > > >> = > > > >> So, still, no, you should not reuse TXT. You should have your own > > >> RRType. Other choices makes your design very complex. > > >> = > > > >> Yes, many people will still disagree with me, using arguments I do not > > >> agree with... > > > = > > > > The conclusion of Section 3.5 of that document doesn't really address > > > the first bullet in the same section, namely that the user interface by > > > which the new RRType would get added to a zone often doesn't support > > > doing so. That's turned out to be a serious problem with, for example, > > > the deployment of the SPF record (RRType 99). > > Which user interfaces are people using to add RRtype 99? If you are having > > them edit zone files by hand well, yes, that would not work real well for > > SPF. If there is a simple tool that takes the needed information and crea= > te > > a standard-formatted record that can be copy-and-pasted, it would make use > > of that RRtype much easier. If no such tool exists, I propose that it can > > be created easily. > > We've published a script to take a Type TXT SPF record and give a Type SPF = > > output as part of the pyspf library since very shortly after Type SPF was = > > assigned. It's been around for years, so the lack of that type of tool isn= > 't = > > an issue. > > Scott K My user interface is "vi". RFC 4408 April 2006 revision 1.1 date: 2005-07-14 16:46:44 +1000; author: marka; state: Exp; branches: 1.1.2; 1892. [func] Support for SPF rdata type. [RT #15033] It was first available in BIND 9.4.0 (Feb 2007) earlier still if you were willing to run alpha/beta/rc. OS vendors could have supplied it earlier. cp lib/dns/rdata/generic/txt_16.c lib/dns/rdata/generic/spf_19.c cp lib/dns/rdata/generic/txt_16.h lib/dns/rdata/generic/spf_19.h s/TXT/SPF/ s/txt/spf/ s/16/99/ make clean make You don't even have to touch a Makefile. After that all the tools that come with BIND support SPF. If I remember correctly someone did something like that and made it available. Its definitely been done for a number of new types. Mark -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@xxxxxxx _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf