> On 26 Mar 2018, at 15:39, Tony Finch <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Evan Hunt <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> These RR types have text representations and wire format representations,
>> which from a complexity standpoint seem quite harmless to implement. There
>> are the old annoying rules about name compression and sorting, which do add
>> some complexity, but are already implemented in all the existing codebases.
>
> There's the particularly special case of WKS which has weird collision
> logic - RFC 2136 section 3.4.2.2. It's extra weird that this was specified
> in 1997 when WKS was deprecated in 1989 - RFC 1101 and RFC 1123.
>
> I fear that this will make it hard to delete WKS code because that may
> introduce interop bugs if a new server bindly allows colliding WKS records
> that an old server objects to.
Good catch. WKS would then probably need a separate document that would also
remove it from RFC 2136.
But it’s funny that we should not remove a record while this was already
written in 1989:
An application SHOULD NOT rely on the ability to locate a WKS
record containing an accurate listing of all services at a
particular host address, since the WKS RR type is not often used
by Internet sites. To confirm that a service is present, simply
attempt to use it.
While the special processing was added to RFC 2136 (9 years later) is really
beyond my understanding :(.
Ondrej
--
Ondřej Surý
[email protected]
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
