Talk:List of DNS record types

Copies of this information elsewhere

The SpamCopWiki holds a copy of the section of the Wikipedia DNS article that this article was based on. --Alvestrand 08:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

more record types (DNSSEC/IPSec/SPF)

As people can see from my recent updates, I've added/updated quite a few of the DNS record types, but I haven't touched several important classes, in particular the DNSSEC and IPSec records. Honestly, I do know know the state of either of these well enough to know which ones are current, which ones are obsolete, and which ones are irrelevant.

Should these record types be added? If so, does anyone know which ones?

I have also not added the type99 SPF record type as I was involved in that project. Wrs1864 (talk) 18:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe I've added them all now - either to the list or to the list of what's obsolete and why. Please check! --Alvestrand (talk) 16:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I double checked, and the only records that I found were missing were the IANA reserved ones (which I added). I do have some uncertainty about some of the records though. Wasn't the KX record obsoleted by the DS record? Also, I thought A6 had also been obsoleted, but I guess from what I can tell it was only "moved from standard track to experimental". I'm also not sure why RT is under the "not in current use" rather than with the rest of the AFSDB/X25/ISDN set. Wrs1864 (talk) 23:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I think (working from memory) that KX is actually specified for some use in relationship with Kerberos, and has nothing to do with DNSSEC at all; DS was invented in an attempt to remove the need in DNSSEC version 1 for putting KEY and SIG records into glue records at the delegating point. A6 was intended as a more powerful and maintainable alternative to the AAAA record, but introduced so much possible complexity that it gathered a lot of opposition; as a compromise, it was relegated to experimental. RT is "not in current use" because I don't remember it well enough to say whether it's tied to an obsolete protocol or not. Someone (maybe me) will have to go read it. --Alvestrand (talk) 05:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

obsolete/irrelevant DNS records

There are a large number of DNS records that are either obsolete (MD/MF/MB/MG/WKS/X25/etc.) or have never really been used much (HINFO/GPOS/SINK/APL/etc.) which I have not included. I'm not sure if they should be mentioned in a small summary section, similar to how WKS is currently mentioned, or not mentioned at all, or if they should be put into the main table, maybe with a new column denoting obsolete/experimental/standard/whatever.

I am personally leaning toward the summary paragraph format but I am very interested in what other people think. Wrs1864 (talk) 19:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

For things that are out-and-out obsolete, such as WKS, or only used with standards that never saw deployment (such as the first generation of DNSSEC records), I think the summary paragraph is best. If there's any reasonable doubt about the status of the record, it should probably go into the list. --Alvestrand (talk) 13:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I like your changes, thanks. For what it is worth, I listed a record in the large list if there was already a wikipedia article. By definition of what should be in wikipedia, all of those records are "notable". Wrs1864 (talk) 15:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure that HINFO is a hopeless case? RFC 4035 uses it in examples, folks sometimes talk about coordinates stored in HINFO, and IANA has registries related to HINFO (machine names + operating system names). --217.184.142.38 (talk) 21:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's dead - the examples in RFC 4035 are for a system running ITS and a system running TOPS-10. That sounds like Rob's sense of humor.... and the IANA registry at [1] lists WANG but not WINDOWS-2000..... that's not a very up-to-date list.... --Alvestrand (talk) 22:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I've actually seen a Wang about 25 years ago... ;-) Windows 2000 is apparently still covered by Windows NT5. Admittedly "last update 2002" sounds like dead, no XP, no Ubuntu, no Vista, how about another decruft "experiment" ? --217.184.142.28 (talk) 16:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC) ^[2]