Talk:List of DNS record types

message: One of the "Open Books" on http://www.zytrax.com/ covers DNS and has been used as a base for a book, it seems to be pretty comprehensive: http://www.zytrax.com/books/dns/. It also contains a section about record types. --C167 (talk) 18:36, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zytrax Open Book 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Copies of this information elsewhere 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  more record types (DNSSEC/IPSec/SPF) 

message: This article ought to have a link so some online tool that allows you to view all the DNS records registered for any given name.  This is a tool I have been looking for in the past and would find quite useful.  If anyone knows of such a tool, please add it.  158.104.1.114 (talk) 03:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: if you're running a windows or unix/linux box, "nslookup" (a commmand line tool you can invoke from "cmd") is your friend. And no, I don't think this belongs in the article - it's context specific. WP:NOT#HOWTO is the relevant page to quote, I think. --Alvestrand (talk) 03:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Such a tool shouldn't be on the main page. But in case anyone reading this needs it, here's one you can use: https://www.nslookup.io/ Ruurtjan (talk) 10:05, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  DNS Record Lookup Resource 

message: "separate than that used in the SOA record" - this is plain English? Maybe "separated from ..." would mean something. --Doru001 (talk) 09:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unclear 

message: I have an idea about a feature that would change how the internet worked.
I propose that DNS have resource record types such as: 
porthttp,porthttps,portsmtp,portsmtps,portimap,portimaps,portpop3,portpop3s,portftp,portftps,etc...
I appears to me that such a move would change the way the world relies on IP addresses, since we appear to be running out.  If you think how many servers there are in the world that have static IP addresses that only host one web page or even one service.
It seems like it would be fairly easy to implement a record type lookup to determine what port a website is using. The same thing could be accomplished for looking up what port a mail server is using.  Yes the web browsers of the world could be adapted to do a ip and port lookup.
SSL Certificates could be adapted to include both the domain name and port.
DNS record types could be created and used to register what port a webpage is on.
For example:
My webpage would have two DNS records.
Record Type "A" host record, www.example.com = 127.0.0.1
Record Type "porthttp" port record, www.example.com = 80
This type of resource lookup would allow the internet to host a website or service on which ever port they wanted and would prevent the world from relying on common ports as the answer of where am I going to put my service. 
Think about this. Currently one static IP address can only host one website service on a single static IP address.  Routing and NAT take care of this. The only problem is there is no DNS record to lookup a port for the expected service. If a single IP address can have 65535 ports then a single IP NAT address could host 65535 websites on 65535 different ports.  All is need is the ability to find the port that the http service is located on.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.106.179.249 (talk) 10:58, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  DNS Question / Idea 

message: The description of DNAME:
"DNAME creates an alias for a name and all its subnames"
seems to contradict the explanation given in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNAME_record#DNAME_record :
"An A record lookup for foo.example.com will fail because a DNAME is not a CNAME. However, a look up for xyzzy.foo.example.com will be DNAME mapped and return the A record..."
If these two statements are contradictory, one of them should obviously be corrected. If they are not contradictory, they need to be clarified.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.251.178.207 (talk) 14:28, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right, Those do seem to be either contradictory or at the very least ambiguous. I have clarified the wording at CNAME record Please review and see if you can suggest any improvements. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 05:49, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seemingly contradictory DNAME explanation 

message: cnames = really?  i have no clue of what that does or what that's supposed to mean.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.135.156.3 (talk) 05:49, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  lacking examples for people seeking technical use 

message: Missing CSYNC - RFC7477, record type 62, "Advises parent zone operator to update NS and Glue records"
Rectapedia (talk) 13:23, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  CSYNC 

message: DNAME is not obsolete.  It is not uncommon to use it in mergers and acquisitions.
RFC 2672, which the table claims obsoletes DNAME, does not.  It clarifies its use and illuminates some operational pitfalls.
What may have confused folks is that one of its uses was incorrectly deprecated by RFC3363, which deprecation is reversed in 2672.
On page 12 of RFC 6672, which is current:
 In [RFC3363], the following paragraph is updated by this document,
   and the use of DNAME RRs in the reverse tree is no longer deprecated.''
Note that this is the only use that was questioned.  DNAME per-se was never deprecated or obsoleted.
The 2008 musings about "to my knowledge was never deployed" are not authoritative, and the extent that they may have been true at the time, certainly do not reflect current reality.
Please read 6672 carefully and correct this article.
A full list record type assignments and their official status is available at http://www.iana.org/assignments/dns-parameters/dns-parameters.xhtml#dns-parameters-4
Except as officially obsoleted or deprecated in an RFC, the use of "Obsolete" is inappropriate in this article.
If you can cite a reliable source for frequency of use, you could reasonably have an "infrequently used" section - assuming there's a reasonable threshold.  
Considering the number of records currently in the DNS, a very small percentage can easily represent a large number of records.
Rectapedia (talk) 18:59, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  DNAME redux -- not obsolete and never was 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of DNS record types. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080611185015/http://www.ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/namedroppers.2004/msg00949.html to http://www.ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/namedroppers.2004/msg00949.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:37, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Regarding the RP resource record...  the data there are simply described as "Human Readable", but are actually pointers to another record (probably one or more TXT records) that contain the free-form text.  Sort of like the MX record refers to another domain name A record.  
Likewise, the other field is intended to contain an email address, encoded in the same fashion as the email address in the SOA record.I'm the author/creator of the RP resource record type.
Louis Mamakos (talk) 20:38, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  RP RR type