> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of david repking > > I'd be satisfied if the requirements draft were to say: > > > > The protocol MUST NOT require use of a new DNS RR type. > The protocol > > MAY allow for optional use of a new RR type. > > And then nobody will use the new (optional) RR type, if > there's an alternative.
So what? Identify a negative consequence that will affect end users or network administrators as a result. > IMHO, new types of data MUST require new types of RR Why? All that the protocol requires is that the data types be unambiguously represented. A prefix meets that need. It is desirable to have support for wildcards. As has been explained a pointer record meets this need much better. > If we would re-use RR types, why don't you wan't arbitrary > numeric values on A records (like telephone numers, > extensions, system IDs, > etc) ??? Actually we already have this proposal, its called ENUM. _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
