Subject: RE: [Asrg] Devilish: Forget about DNS

From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2004 09:14:00 -0800

> there has been a lot of discussion about how to cope with the 
> limitations of stone age service DNS. 
> 
> DNS is difficult to extend for new record types, which makes 
> it expensive to introduce a new record type like RMX RR.

It is also deployed and it works.

The problems with the extension mechanism are in my view dealt with by the
_protocol mechanism introduced in SRV and used in NAPTR as well as many of
the proposals on the table.

> And - last not least - we are struggling with the packet size
> limitations and the dualism of UDP and TCP.

The proposal to introduce XML into SPF makes a lot of sense if you expect
the DNS itself to be replaced at some point in the near future with
something XML based. 

I would not recommend going to HTTP or TCP here, I would look at using
something like DIME over UDP with a lightweight session layer - TCP is not
designed well for transactions of one to four packets.

Then we get into the usual issues, this has been proposed so often in the
past that there are strong immune responses tuned to reject anything like it
on sight in the IETF.

_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg

---

From: Hadmut Danisch <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2004 18:30:24 +0100

> designed well for transactions of one to four packets.

On the contrary: While I agree with you on one hand, the network
carries tons of HTTP queries which are answered with one to four
packets, and nobody cares about. So why should it be worse to 
fetch RMX/LMAP/whatever records the same way?

The TCP with few packets proplem is a separate problem. Let someone
else improve HTTP and benefit once this will be done in future.

Hadmut