On 2021-02-19 18:45, Havard Eidnes wrote:
> However, "burning" a new RR just for this purpose seems to me to
> not be necessary, so I favour the scheme in 5.6 using a TXT
> record instead.

My reading of RFC 5507 "Design Choices When Expanding the DNS"
ยง6 ( https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5507#section-6 ):

      ... of all the alternate solutions, the "obvious" approach of using
      TXT Resource Records for arbitrary names is almost certainly the
      worst ...

seems to favor "burning" a new RR "just for this purpose".
While RFC 5507 is informational, it does consider the general
problem (new RR vs. TXT) in some detail.

-- 
Charles Polisher

_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

Reply via email to