On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 11:43 AM, Paul Hoffman <[email protected]> wrote: > On Apr 1, 2015, at 9:23 AM, John R Levine <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Applications using base32 would still need to have an exact match to >>> return anything in DNS - so I do not understand the use of base32 and >>> another confusing empty non-terminal dot in DNS. >>> >>> I do not understand the advantage of base32 in the QNAME. >> >> As Viktor pointed out, the advantage is that the server can easily recover >> the local-part from the query, which makes it possible for a specialized >> server to do whatever it does and generate a response dynamically. You >> can't do that with hashes. >> >> I've written DNS servers that generate responses on the fly from a database >> where it does application-specific lookups and transformations. It's >> surprisingly easy. They don't do DNSSEC yet but I'm planning to take a >> whack at that later this year. > > This sounds like a new protocol that changes the nature of the DNS. That's > fine, but it certainly does not belong in DANE, and probably not in DNSOP.
DNS servers exist which serve dynamically-generated data, and DNS servers exist which serve signed (on the fly) dynamically-generated RRsets with non-existence proofs. IIUC PowerDNS is one example. Nico -- _______________________________________________ dane mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dane
