Subject: Re: QType: ADDR

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2002 01:42:03 +0900

>It is not the IETF's business (I hope!) to make life easy for application 
>developers who don't know what they're doing, and can't be bothered to 
>study.

	for this reason we have RFC2553.

itojun

--
to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>

---

From: "Eric A. Hall" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2002 11:50:27 -0500

on 8/8/2002 11:35 AM Ted Lemon wrote:
> This sounds like a good reason to strategically place some very large
> RRsets in the DNS at places where these stupid applications will trip
> over them, not a good reason not to add a useful feature to the
> protocol.

That might solve one problem, but not the one I'm worried about.

> It is not the IETF's business (I hope!) to make life easy for
> application developers who don't know what they're doing, and can't be
> bothered to study.

Requiring applications to issue 2x the queries (until the majority of
nodes have AAAA RRs) doesn't help anybody. Consider also that negative
caching has different ramifications (typically shorter TTLs) which mean
that the first query (failure) will get passed along more often. An ADDR
qtype can help against these potential problems somewhat.

So even if everybody learned the lesson (yeah right), there are other good
reasons to do it.

-- 
Eric A. Hall                                        http://www.ehsco.com/
Internet Core Protocols          http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/coreprot/