there is one thing buried in here that's worth answering:
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org [mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On
Behalf Of Bernie Volz (volz)
This technique has been in use for years by implementations
using TXT records because we've been unable to get the DHCID
RR approved.
OK so why are you proposing a new protocol rather than writing a
description of the protocols that are already in use?
Correctly prefixed TXT records work just as well as new RRs and are
completely compatible with the deployed infrastructure. If you attempt
to cut new DNS RRs you will hit the problem that your proposal is now
dependent on deployment of a new infrastructure which has no deployment
strategy.
what we are trying to do is to produce something that allows
interoperability. that's different from documenting existing
similar-but-not-quite implementations. there is no "compatible" at this
time - but we would like to get there.
-- Mark
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf