Mark, > As far as I can tell this is the only arguement today against > deploying new RRs. Guess what. The way to fix this problem > is to deploy new RRs. Force the broken implementation to > be fixed. If there is no pressure they won't be fixed.
So your view is to coerce application protocol developers, in the hope that it will (eventually) coerce one or more product developers? And there is some track record of producing timely results that fix long-standing limitations in major implementations through this technique, without damaging adoption of the new application? > The problem is that continuing to use the TXT record *will* > break the DNS. IT DOES NOT SCALE. It may not be today but > as each application comes along and decides "we can use TXT > records" it is one more pile of straw on the camel's back. Given that underscore naming partitions the occurrence of TXT records to particular semantic contexts, what -- specifically -- is the scaling problem that you believe will happen? > We have problems today with application making "*" queries. This does not "break" the aggregate DNS. It is a limitation in the use of the DNS for that particular application. The folks using underscore naming are aware of that issue. > These are causing caches to have to fallback to TCP. 1. From your text, I could not quite track what it is that is causing these fallbacks. Please clarify. 2. I don't recall seeing documentation of this problem, during discussions about the use of underscore names. (A registry for underscore naming IS what was being discussed.) d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net . dnsop resources:_____________________________________________________ web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop.html mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop/index.html
