Re: Issue: Add a new QTYPE

[Ólafur Guðmundsson <ogud@ogud.com>]

</co-chair>
At 22:36 2003-11-24, Kevin Darcy wrote:
> The fact that all extant implementations (arguably) violate the standard 
> in the same, interoperable way does not mean the behavior is correct -- 
> that is, after all, the defining difference between _de_facto_ standards 
> and _de_jure_ ones.

None of the implementations IMHO violate the standard.
QTYPE=* is a debugging tool only.


> More importantly, a faithful implementation of QTYPE=* recursivity might 
> rescue that QTYPE from its current state of dubious usefulness (at best) 
> and/or near-obsolescence (at worst), and put an end to all of these 
> new-metatype proposals without the overreaching that EDNS1 represented or 
> was perceived to represent. I can understand why you'd be bitter about how 
> EDNS1 turned out, but that doesn't mean a more modest approach, one that 
> stays within the existing RFC 1034/1035 framework without requiring 
> extensions, can't or shouldn't work.

If you want all the types just ask an authoritative server directly.
There is no need to complicate caches.

(If you are stuck behind a firewall that does not allow you to bypass the
cache, you are out of luck, but that is a well known problem.

        Olafur


>                           - Kevin
>
>
>
> --
> to unsubscribe send a message to namedroppers-request@ops.ietf.org with
> the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
> archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>


--
to unsubscribe send a message to namedroppers-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>