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
