On 26 aug 2008, at 14.23, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> I should have been clearer. If I were to go down this path, the point
> of the NAPTR or SRV (or now URI, or whatever other kind of) RR would
> actually be just to provide the place to look up the policy (and maybe
> how), rather than to provide the policy itself. I'm not quite as
> stupid as I look: I didn't think I was going to put the whole policy
> in the DNS itself!
Oh, I did get *that* point :-) We know each other enough.
I just wanted to say that I think such URI based solution is better
than the S-NAPTR or NAPTR one.
But maybe the question was whether that kind of solution was braindead
to begin with?
Patrik
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
