Subject: RE: [On Rewriting SMTP and DNS] RE: MARID to close - Comments/Suggestions

From: "Gordon Fecyk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 19:53:40 -0500

> In fairness to Bob. There is a big difference between saying
> "DNS cannot do that" and "The deployed Microsoft DNS server
> does not do that".

That's just it: Microsoft's deployed DNS server (Windows 2000 SP4 at least)
CAN.  Folks here provided examples and demonstrations of how it can.

Even if not, I dared suggest that an alternate DNS service could provide
anything that Microsoft's deployed DNS server (hypothetically, if not
realisticly) could not provide.  I clearly remember Bob's reaction to that,
how I would Dare Suggest That Windows Components Could Be Replaced.  How
blasphemous.

I suppose other folks with the same mentality would faint at the sight of
seeing LitePC picking apart their prized OS[1], that Internet Explorer could
somehow be completely removed from Windows.  Even though that was just as
clearly demonstrated in a US court of law.  But no one in Redmond talks much
about that little embarrassment.[2]

[1] Using APIs published by Microsoft, no less!

[2] Even local consultants here balk at the concept.  And some of these folks
are otherwise very smart people.

-- 
PGP key (0x0AFA039E): <http://www.pan-am.ca/[email-masked]>
Sometimes it's hard to tell where the game ends and where reality bites,
er, begins. <http://vmyths.com/resource.cfm?id=50&page=1>

---

From: John Levine <[email-masked]>
Date: 26 Sep 2004 20:20:45 -0000

>CAN.  Folks here provided examples and demonstrations of how it can.

I agree that there are alternatives for DNS service, although most of
the suggestions seemed much too hacky for anything other than hobbyist
systems.

The insoluble problem for Windows users is on the client side.
Someone decided that there would never ever be an new DNS record type,
so their API for DNS requests has a separate call for every record
type.  They'll have to release both new client libraries and firewall
services before hosts behind a firewall can see a new record type.  I
agree this was a breathtakingly poor design decision, but there's too
many Windows boxes in the field to ignore it.

This same problem will affect any scheme that publishes info in the
DNS.  Even if it defines new record types for new data (which is
clearly the right thing to do for DNS performance), it'll need some
sort of long-term transition kludge using existing record types.

Regards,
John Levine, [email-masked], Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
http://www.taugh.com

---

From: Graham Murray <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 07:52:13 +0100

John Levine <[email-masked]> writes:

> They'll have to release both new client libraries and firewall

Or it could be used as a mechanism to force people to upgrade to the
'latest and greatest' windows.