On May 28, 2014, at 12:39 PM, Evan Hunt <[email protected]> wrote: > But another way of saying that is: "software exists that kluges around > this lacuna in the DNS feature set", which doesn't mean it isn't a > lacuna.
Sure, but you could also say that IP leaves out the feature of supporting streaming, and that TCP kludges around this lacuna. What you are proposing is essentially a management function, not a naming function. Using the DNS to provide that function can work, and may even make sense in some cases, but I don't think it's the right thing to do from an architectural standpoint. If in fact, as you say (and I tend to agree) IPAM solutions don't do this well, then the right thing to do from a standards perspective is to generalize the problem and come up with a way of addressing it using existing tools--e.g., a netconf/yang schema. It is not to complexify the protocol you are trying to manage by stuffing all the management goop into it in a way that is not standard and won't interoperate with existing management tools. _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
