I think you missed the point John. Its a manifesto, and it can take radical positions. If you read Shanes markup its clear a lot of things which are implicit in 'UDP/EDNS0' are up for grabs.
I for one, would welcome versioning models closer to HTTP. I'd also welcome client-capability signalling and negotiation, another thing which won't happen in my lifetime on port 53. -G On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 2:04 PM, John Levine <jo...@taugh.com> wrote: > In article <037201d1db19$78c3ac90$6a4b05b0$@cn> you write: >>When I first looked into DNS, I was recommended with a complex figure of DNS >>protocol family describing the dependency and activeness of many RFC >>documents. I'm wondering if it is possible to attach versions to DNS >>protocol similar like IPv4 and IPv6, http/1.1 and HTTP/2 which can give >>clear path of DNS evolution and help to keep protocol conformance. > > In a word, no. EDNS0 is the closest thing we have to versioning, and > even though it's designed to be as backwards compatible as possible, > things still break. > > The main problem is that there's a lot of dusty old firewalls and the > like that have dusty old software with a rigid and obsolete idea of > what DNS packets to allow through. We all would like people to get > with the program and use less cruddy and obsolete software, but good > luck with that. > > R's, > John > > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list > DNSOP@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
