Re: draft-ietf-dnsext-apl-rr-01.txt

[Dennis Glatting <dennis.glatting@software-munitions.com>]

Patrik F=E4ltstr=F6m wrote:
> =

> At 09.57 -0800 00-12-03, Dennis Glatting wrote:
> >One problem I have with adding any new RR type to DNS is the core
> >software (server and client), and across all vendors, must be modified=

> >to incorporate the new type whereas with LDAP you simply (YMMV) add a
> >new schema and plug in data. In the case of DNS, you are introducing
> >software complexity and error to a critical operating component of the=

> >Internet, worsened if you are relying on DNSsec. With LDAP, you are
> >not.
> =

> Well, basically I am of course agreeing with you and all others on
> this list. Yes, I am an apps person, but I have been working with DNS
> long enough (since 87 or so) that I use exactly the arguments you do.
> =

> I just tried to in the beginning to this discussion explain why
> people which do _not_ understand how important stability of DNS is
> want to put more and more RR types into DNS.
> =

> To continue that discussion, I basically don't understand why you
> have to add code to generic DNS software just because you add an RR.
> I.e. adding a new RR type and a new schema in LDAP is basically the
> same thing. res_send etc handle the records just fine, and only the
> software which really need the information in the RR have to be able
> to change it.
> =


Interesting  point. I was thinking existing implementation.


to unsubscribe send a message to namedroppers-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.