At 7:47 AM +0200 6/24/10, Patrik Fältström wrote: >Sure, but, support for unknown RR Types is said to be needed since long time >back. And what API do not handle the ability to request an RR with a specific >RRTYPE? > >int res_query(const char *dname, int class, int type, u_char *answer, int >anslen); > >Anyway...this discussion has been held in the IETF I do not know how many >times. Instead of writing another 10 lines of code (or whatever is needed) >people fall back to existing RR Types, and not only that, define future >protocols because of lack of #define for new RRTYPES. > >I know people have different views here, and I have one specific view ;-)
As someone who normally has that "different view", I support a new RRTYPE in this case because the option of reusing SRV is not sufficient: it requires DNS-SRV-followed-by-HTTP. I think a new RRTYPE that keeps the DNS lookup entirely in the DNS protocol far outweighs reusing SRV but requiring HTTP on both sides. --Paul Hoffman, Director --VPN Consortium _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
