Re: wildcard NAPTR ( was [sitefinder-tech-discuss] followup from

[bmanning@karoshi.com]

> > 	To me, this clearly is the cleaner tactic albeit w/ a steeper
> > 	adoption slope.  Or in a word. - yes-
> 
> Well, I'm not sure what the competitors are.  A change to the DNS 
> protocol would require adoption by both infrastructe and applications. 
> This is just change to the applications.
> 
> -andy

	competitors? - my premise here is that -IF- (its a big one)
	wildcards are to be used, then the rational for picking 
	one RR type over another needs to be carefully considered.
	The easy/obvious choice was wildcarding an "A"  but this
	has unanticipated side effects (which ports to turn on and
	why come to mind).  My statement (above) is that selecting 
	other wildcards, say MX & NAPTR may be a better way to 
	accomplish the stated objective (sitefinder) and the unstated
	objective of fostering inovative services.

	NAPTR, as a "change to the DNS protocol" has already been
	approved by the IETF and is uspported in most modern implementations.

	Busted applications... thats jumping to another thread before
	we finish this one.  
--bill

----------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.elistx.com/unsubscribe>