Subject: Re: Towards resolution on Wildcards

From: Luis Bruno <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 15:21:06 +0100

Jim Lyon wrote:
> The biggest problem is that if you publish a new record format, a
> significant fraction of the people on the internet will not be able
> to see it [...]

... for a while. Maybe I didn't express myself clearly:

   Should we use TXT as a stopgap while the new RR isn't deployed?

That's the question I'd like to see answered; do you guys have any
difficulties with that? It would mean extra traffic for DNS servers who
don't support the new RR. On the receiving-MTA side, I don't see any
problem with a second query; if I'm wrong, please correct me.

I'd rather use a new RR for the final infrastructure and make it
binary, since the RR is for machine consumption.

-- 
Luis Bruno                                UTM: 29T 629481E 4511776N 576m

---

From: Edward Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 11:04:24 -0400

>    Should we use TXT as a stopgap while the new RR isn't deployed?

I think so.  The purist in my wants a new type, but the realist says 
the spam problem can't wait the time it takes for a new type to 
appear in DNS.

>problem with a second query; if I'm wrong, please correct me.

I don't see anything wrong with parallel queries.  BIND (not DNS) 
does that now for A and AAAA records when getting addresses for name 
servers, as well as SSH.  Transitions do work, e.g., ip6.int to 
ip6.arpa is happening.

-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis                                            +1-703-227-9854
ARIN Research Engineer

"I can't go to Miami.  I'm expecting calls from telemarketers." -
Grandpa Simpson.