On 3/9/15, 7:08, "D. J. Bernstein" <d...@cr.yp.to> wrote: >The common theme of CNAME/MX/A and A/AAAA is that there's widepread >interest in being able to easily retrieve multiple record types. What >I'm saying is not that query type ANY is the ultimate answer (clearly it >can be improved); what I'm saying is that these are protocol issues, and >that protocol changes need to be handled by an appropriately chartered >IETF working group.
(I removed the dns-operations list from this because this needs to be discussed on DNSOP.) Dan, You're right. But. Operators are not bound to comply with what the IETF documents. As much as operators shouldn't bully the IETF nor the public for which the serve, the street goes two ways. The IETF is not able to and should not bully them. The IETF is supposed to provide us with an interoperable way to operate and is supposed to have documents that reflect "running code." > * Second: The merits of the protocol modification have to be properly > discussed in that working group, to evaluate the costs and benefits > of the protocol modification---and to consider whether there are > better ways to achieve the same benefits. If operators find that a protocol needs to be modified to be properly operated, the IETF ought to adjust the protocol definition. Having a migration path would be a plus too. (Said tongue in cheek.) But - "finding that a protocol needs to be modified" is not as easy as that - hence my quoting of your words above. Ed Lewis
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
