Subject: RE: [ietf-dkim] Re: Issue 1382

From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 10:48:16 -0700

> [mailto:[email-masked]] 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