On 14 apr 2014, at 16:06, Edward Lewis <[email protected]> wrote:
> Looking at these tradeoffs, I see the expense of trying to specify and > explain to operators - via the tools they use - of why there are two records > and what happens if they aren’t the same as far more costly than having the > name server need to deal with varying formats. Yes, I know that NAPTR is > also a poor example, in fact, there aren’t too many examples of varying > record formats out there - except of course for TXT. (Hmmm, perhaps that is > one reason why it is so popular. I mean, besides the firewall pass through > and other acceptance “features.") How much code, in the number of implementations, have you _personally_ written that parses RRSets returned from a query and selects the subset you want to actually use? Including issues with size of RRSets? ;-) Just Do Not Go In That Direction! Yes, I once upon a time supported NAPTR strongly, but because of that I also now hate it and support URI. For this very reason. ;-) Patrik
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
