Re: Evaluation: draft-ietf-dnsext-unknown-rrs - Handling of Unknown DNS Resource Record Types to Proposed Standard

["Steven M. Bellovin" <smb@research.att.com>]

In message <20030512064134.3C6D418EB@thrintun.hactrn.net>, Rob Austein writes:
>At Sun, 11 May 2003 22:28:48 -0400, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
>> 
>> It's clearly necessary to have something like that, but frankly, the 
>> document scares me; it retroactively changes the behavior required for 
>> older RFCs.  I sure with Mockapetris had thought of saying this.
>> 
>> Am I offbase?  Is this much better -- or much worse -- than I fear?
>
>The retroactive changes are mostly DNSSEC-related, and the DNSSECbis
>drafts take the same approach.
>
>The scariest non-DNSSEC part of this draft is presumably the name
>compression stuff in section 4, but note (as this draft does), that
>this section is basicly just finishing up a job that RFC 1123 started
>(section 6.1.3.5, to be precise).
>
>So I agree that it's scary, but I don't know how to do significantly
>better without a time machine.
>
That's what I thought, which is why I no-ob'ed.

		--Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb (me)
		http://www.wilyhacker.com (2nd edition of "Firewalls" book)