Hi Paul,
Thanks for jumping in. Comments inline.
On Wed, 26 Jun 2024, Paul Vixie wrote:
Mark Andrews wrote on 2024-06-26 16:02:
...
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.
in terms of dns infrastructure this is true. while the open source
implementations are fastest to adopt and deploy new rr types, even
proprietary dns implementations are rarely more than a year behind.
but there's infrastructural middleware for which this is not true.
registries and registrars
If I understand your meaning, you are talking about registryfoo.com that
sells domains and provides hosted nameservers; perhaps their web
management interface will balk when presented with processing an unknown
RR?
and things like "webmin" are usually five to
ten years behind on adding support for new rr types.
The interesting thing about the present and near term user base of BP is
that they generally have relationships with vendors that gives them the
ability to complain if something they need is not supported, and get
results. Said user base consists of, for example, space agencies, people
who have payloads hosted on commercial CLPS landers who need to speak to
their Lunar assets from the ground, CLPS landers themselves, commercial
Lunar relay orbiter operators, and the like. This variable may be enough
to encourage any such middleware vendor to enable support.
thus, the SPF
debacle in which the application had to back off and go with TXT. and
thus the tendency today to use an existing rr type and a well-known
subdomain beginning with an "_" as a way to deploy more or less
immediately.
What can I say, I am old school, and am willing to take the risk.
dns itself is not the problem. but there is a real problem here about
which the dns technical community can do precisely nothing.
True, but in this case it may be a small enough problem in terms of
affected users, and the circumstances of those users, that it is
self-resolving by existing market forces alone.
Enlightening conversation. Thank you :)
ScottJ
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.
agreed, but that's not the point being argued.
--
P Vixie
_______________________________________________
dtn mailing list -- d...@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to dtn-le...@ietf.org
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list -- dnsop@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to dnsop-le...@ietf.org
