Thanks for the clarification Mark, Rick
> -----Original Message----- > From: Mark Andrews [mailto:ma...@isc.org] > Sent: 27 June 2024 00:03 > To: Rick Taylor > Cc: Scott Johnson; Erik Kline; dnsop; sburleig...@gmail.com; d...@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [DNSOP] [dtn] Re: Re: IPN and CLA RRTYPEs to support Bundle > Protocol RFC9171 > > > > > On 27 Jun 2024, at 03:11, Rick Taylor <r...@tropicalstormsoftware.com> > wrote: > > > > Hi Scott, > > > > Thanks for the updated doc. I've been thinking through what I understand > > is > your use-case, and I wonder whether new RRTYPEs is really the right way to go. > As I see it, the less one has to update the DNS infrastructure of the > Internet the > better, so would this alternative mechanism work for you?: > > Adding a new RRTYPE requires zero infrastructure upgrades. It’s a database > entry at IANA. Every DNS server on the planet should handle these > transparently. That was required by RFC 1034 and RFC 1035. You can even > add them to zones before the parsing software is updated using unknown type > representation (RFC 3597) which was one thing that was missing from RFC > 1035 that would have made adding new types easier. Nameservers and stub > resolvers were always required to treat unknown records as opaque objects. > > This doesn’t mean that there weren’t mis-implementations of the standards > which failed to handle unknown types correctly but there have been 78 types > added since RFC 1034 and RFC 1035. That’s 2-3 per year. Nameserver > developers know how to add new record types quickly. > > Mark > -- > Mark Andrews, ISC > 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia > PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- dnsop@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to dnsop-le...@ietf.org
