Re: [DNSOP] type numbers, was Brief addition to terminology-bis draft

["John Levine" <[e-mail]>]

In article <[e-mail]>,
Mark Andrews  <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> Uh, what?  In the past 30 years we've assigned under 100 rrtypes.  If that rate increases by an order of
>magnitude, we still have a thousand years of them.  Sure we don't know exactly what the future will bring, but
>we can make some reasonable guesses.
>
>We have assigned 100 types with the myth that it is hard to deploy a new type slowing
>down the rate of assignment.

I suppose it's a myth if you hand-edit your zone files with vi.  If
you have to use the web provisioning crudware that everyone else uses,
they are still quite a challenge.  I've tried to fix that with my
extension language proposal but its uptake remains small.  Even so, if
types were really easy to add, I've never seen any proposal that would
use a thousand new types, much less 50,000.

>There are no reasons to kill multiple class support.  

There's really a lot more DNS software than bind.  If nobody's found a
practical use for classes after 30 years, I think we have a result
from the experiment.

In any event, I agree with Suzanne, we're not going to resolve this in
time for the terminology-bis RFC.

R's,
John
-- 
Regards,
John Levine, [e-mail], Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly