With respect to negotiations in DNS - there are actually two protocols involved - the transmission protocol and the data protocol. It's somewhat easier to add negotiation to the transmission protocol (and that's what EDNS0 did in part) because it's between just a client and a server during a specific conversation. Adding negotiation to the data protocol is a bit harder (see for example grafting on the notion of non-existence and the various indications that have to go into the data to signal to a resolver/validator meanings). Its also the case that the publisher of the data doesn't have a clue as to the capabilities of its consumers and they will vary wildly.
So without a massive change to the data model (which may in turn lead to a massive change in the name space with all the political issues thereof - ??), I'm mostly with Ed here. If you just want to re-write the query language and leave the data structures mostly intact - then lets just get the query language correct at the start. We've got 20 years of experience with DNS that should allow us to write a tight protocol for the next 20 years.
Mike At 11:26 AM 12/18/2006, Paul Vixie wrote:
> I think that what is lost often is what makes the DNS a good protocol. ... ask five people this question, get seven distinct nonoverlapping answers. > ... But, please, abandon the hope of negotiating service parameters - ... i can't think of a successful protocol that lacks an "options" escape-hatch? -- 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/>