I agreee John.We have plenty of RR Types to hand out. especially at the upper end
On Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 10:30 PM, John R Levine <jo...@taugh.com> wrote: > 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
