Re: Alternate bookkeeping proposal (MVP)

Gordon Fecyk - Home wrote:
> 
> > COMMENT: MX RRs could be used instead of PTR RRs; with the advantage
> >       that MX RRs can be sorted by priority. Some people have STRONG
> >       feelings about the use of MX RRs for other than the original
> >       intent. This would be somewhat mitigated because the use of
> >       MX RRs here would be in a different name space and the
> >       ${*_PROVIDER*} names should never resolve to A (AAAA) RRs.
> 
> Not to mention the use of PTR records for anything but their original
> intent, or A/AAAA records as DMP originally used, etc etc etc.  You're going
> to get strong feelings there, too.

In that case, lets go for the MX RRs since that gets us priorities and
if the ${*_PROVIDER*} names don't resolve, they're invalid for mail.

> There's a spec for storing otherwise-undefined stuff in DNS - RFC 1464.
> Check that out and see if it's suitable.

TXT based; no thanks. See my earlier comments on TXT RRs based protocols.

> > Wildcard ``unauthorized'' records are not needed since the "provider
> > delegation" supplies the ``implemented'' flag and the MTA must still
> > check all the providers until an ``authorized'' hit is made.
> 
> Solves the wildcard problem.
> 
> Do you want access to an NT4 DNS server to try this out on?  This only
> supports wildcards in MX records by default (can be turned on for everything
> else through a Registry hack but I'd even like to avoid this.)

It takes a registry hack to make an NT4 DNS server comply with the RFCs?


Raymond S Brand