Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
We're caught between a rock and a hard place over this. On
one side we don't want to break existing functionality in DNS
(ahem*s*te-f*nd*r*ahem) but on
another we can't wait for bureaucracy to catch up (ahem*dnssec*ahem).
No existing functionality is broken if you use the prefix
mechanism. SRV already does this.
Before defining *how* the data is stored in DNS, we should work on
*what* that data is. There is a significant disagreement on what kind of
data should be included among different proposals, and this is something
that is more important than how the actual data is stored. This is akin
to writing up the book before figuring out what the cover page and the
title should be, as opposed to picking a title and the picture on the
cover, before writing the content.
With this in mind, I'd be glad to invent something that represents
"antispamproperty=foo,bar,baz" and ask DNS vendors to support
record types as that's apparently easier than asking the DNS
WG to tolerate
record type abuse.
Ignoring the DNS WG is the best, most satisfactory and easiest
route. By the time the proposal reaches the comment from other
groups stage the water will have flowed way past their bridge.
They are the folk who said 'it does not matter if DNSSEC is not
deployable in .com, the solution is to reduce the size of .com'.
There is a legitimate, principled architecture behind the prefix
As much as some of us may be interested in your "war stories" about
fighting the "gods" of the IETF, this is not proper forum for that type