This draft mentions the posibility of requiring a new resource record type.
It isn't clear from the draft if the mention is in reference to the idea of
using a new RR type in parallel with TXT for some period or if the idea is
possibly deployment exclusively in the new RR type.
If it's the latter, I think that this would be an extraordinarily bad idea.
In my opinion, if this protocol is going to require a new RR type to go
forward, it will never get deployed.
Recommend a new requirement that the protocol MUST NOT depend solely on a new
DNS RR type just so there won't be any confusion on this.
Scott K
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html