Sorry, if that's what it sounded like. I also think it's worth
considering. My point is that if it's worth trying, we should give it an
rrtype and not screw around with overloaded TXT records. It's not like
we're in any immediate danger of running out of rrtypes.
R's,
John
My email wasn't a statement that I don't think the work is relevant. It
seems that interesting enough for the WG that there are
two use cases: 1) the root zone; and 2) everything else.
I had spent some time looking the draft over and realizing it was marked
standards track, and I think it would be easier to adopt for the the
specific use case if
it wasn't standards track.
And, why not combine zone-digest with 7706bis?
Tim
On Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 9:26 PM, John Levine <jo...@taugh.com> wrote:
In article <20180730002348.ga41...@isc.org> you write:
A good point. Technically, I don't think there's anything in ZONEMD that
couldn't be implemented with TXT; using a dedicated rrtype for the purpose
is mere convenience.
Well, heck, we could do the whole DNS with TXT records. But if it
were a TXT record, it'd either need a reserved prefix name or a
reserved string in the record to say what it is. As Mark noted, that
makes calculating the hash a lot more fiddly.
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
