On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 9:56 AM, David Conrad <d...@virtualized.org> wrote:
> John, > > > Either that or figure out how to make it easy enough to deploy new > > RRTYPEs that people are willing to do so. > > > > The type number is 16 bits, after all. We're not in any danger of > running out. > > We have been told on numerous occasions that one of the primary reasons > for continued use of TXT is because middleboxes, etc., do not allow new RR > types (something deprecation of the SPF RR would seem to only encourage). > The number of bits in the type field would not seem to be particularly > relevant to this. > > Regards, > -drc > Which is a problem that I think can only be solved if there is a general solution of the policy distribution problem and an expectation that at least new middle boxen will support it. I have been pushing for some sort of 'Internet 2.0' branding for equipment that meets a comprehensive set of nextgen needs, i.e. IPv6, port forwarding, DNSSEC, border policy enforcement for that very reason. But it has to be a two way street. The reason DNS Choices fell flat is that it just told people what not to do to solve their problems, it did not provide a proposal that actually solved their problems. -- Website: http://hallambaker.com/
