On 13-Nov-2006, at 22:45, Eric Allman wrote:
By putting the record in a subdomain we believe we have avoided the
major issues associated with TXT records. I would not be surprised
if someone proposes a new RR; if so we'll deal with that as the
time comes. It just didn't seem necessary to add the friction
associated with a new RR in order to get a reliable DKIM specified.
For the benefit of those who do not follow dnsext closely, what
friction do you expect?
I wasn't holding a stopwatch, but the last RRtype assignment I saw
striding by (the one documented in RFC 4421) seemed to be relatively
straightforward.
Is the issue the assignment of a new RRtype, a practical
consideration of implementation of the new RRtype in zone file
parsers, an inability of particular implementations to handle opaque
types, something else, or all of the above?
Joe
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf