Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!hp4nl!charon!piet
From: piet@cwi.nl (Piet Beertema)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip.domains
Subject: Re: innovative use of HINFO records
Message-ID: <3548@charon.cwi.nl>
Date: 16 May 91 21:23:09 GMT
References: <9105131515.AA02280@intrepid.erg.sri.com> <1991May15.143255.1811@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Sender: news@cwi.nl
Distribution: inet
Organization: CWI, Amsterdam
Lines: 26


	David Curry observes that TXT records may be more suitable
	than HINFO records for describing domains.  At the time I
	started entering the records the TXT record was not supported.
	Even today it's not a RR that many people think to check when
	perusing another domain.
True. But it's not so very long ago that MX records
were a curiosity. They're commonplace nowadays. And
I expect the same to happen with TXT records; they
may well prove to be a valuable tool in finding real
descriptive information about domains.

	For hosts I keep the HINFO information fairly generic. The
	CPU type is specified clearly (sun-3/50, vax-3500, etc) but
	the OS is kept generic (UNIX, DOS, VMS, etc).  Version
	information just makes the information out of date sooner
	and gives a false sense of precision.
Right. And if the information is up to date you may
attract certain types who exploit the weaknesses and
flaws of certain OS's. Sure enough, security through
obscurity doesn't work in the end, but providing too
much information is not a good idea either.


-- 
	Piet Beertema, CWI, Amsterdam	(piet@cwi.nl)