John C Klensin wrote:
--On Monday, March 26, 2018 00:07 -0700 Paul Vixie
<p...@redbarn.org> wrote:
... My impression has been that, while there is nothing we can
change about what is done and deployed, there has been community
consensus that it is a bad idea and that changes have been made
to the procedures for defining and registering new RRTYPEs to
reinforce the principle that new RRTYPEs should be used and to
make their use easier. "Significantly challenging over the life
of the DNS" is undoubtedly correct, but that should not be, and
presumably is not, the situation today or in recent years. I
believe this document should not be advanced until that material
is changed to be clear that use of underscore or similar
conventions may be a reality but is not a desirable substitute
for separate RRTYPEs (with or without that convention as
appropriate).
while i am sympathetic to this point of view, and even share it, i
know that developers of new apps learned from the SPF RR example
"never again" and that they can and have and will continue to
create new apps based on TXT with or without the IETF's blessing.
so i'm expecting your call for the stated clarification to not
reach consensus in this WG.
If you are telling me I've fighting a losing battle, I understand
that. At the same time, as I trust people have figured out from RFC
8324 and/or Bert's presentation in DNSOP last week, I think there is
reason for concern that continuing to add features, especially
features with either high intrinsic complexity or significant kludge
properties, may eventually push things over some virtual cliff. That
makes the fight worth fighting even if most of the battles are lost.
i wish that reality as we will experience it was even halfway as cut or
dried as you describe here. however, just as the worst abuser of "fake
news" later became the most common accuser of that abuse in others,
especially where the news _wasn't_ fake, so it is that your desire to
create new RRTYPEs in preference to "just use TXT and allocate a new
underbar'd name" will be called, wrongly and unfairly as i see it, but
that won't matter, will be called, "unnec'y increase in system
complexity." therefore, the battle you'll lose will be around who gets
to call which thing by what name, and not around what problems should be
avoided. the shape of this conference table has been decided -- your
remaining decision is where you will allow yourself to be seated.
--
P Vixie
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
