DNS vs. non-DNS Data (was Re: Signature at parent (draft-ietf-dnsop-parent-sig-00.txt))

[Kevin Darcy <[e-mail]>]

Randy Bush wrote:

> in general, we discourage storing non-dns data in the dns.

What is the definition of "DNS data", actually? In a strict definition, even
MX records and PTRs are "non-DNS data", i.e. they are not necessary to hold
the DNS infrastructure together. By such a strict definition, all of
DNSSEC is "non-DNS data". Does that mean it should be deprecated?

Or, is "DNS data" to be defined loosely as "whatever one can legally store
in the DNS"? In that case, the principle enunciated by Randy above is
totally circular.

A reasonable definition should lay somewhere between those two extremes. It
should delineate *why* it is acceptable to e.g. store in DNS data about how
an SMTP client should deliver a piece of email, whereas it is, _arguendo_,
*not* acceptable to store in DNS data about how an IPSec client should
encrypt and/or sign/verify packets.

I wish someone would clarify this, so that whenever a new record type is
shot down because it supposedly puts "non-DNS data" into the DNS, or a new
use for an existing record type -- like storing IPSec keys in DNS -- is shot
down for essentially the same reason, it doesn't look so much like a
capricious exercise of power.


- Kevin





to unsubscribe send a message to [e-mail] with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.