On Fri, Jul 07, 2017 at 07:52:36AM +1000, Mark Andrews wrote:
In message <20170706153955.GB3393@localhost>, Nico Williams writes:
So new classes will only be useful to extend the IN-class RR type
namespace. We won't get there. New RR types can be very difficult to
deploy due to lack of interest by registrars and domain hosting
services. TXT RRs forever. :(
Or you could stop trying to reinforce the myth that new RR types
are hard to deploy. They really aren't. They actually get used
all the time.
I'm well aware that as to clients and servers, deploying new RR types is
easy. The hard part is the management backend and UIs. Not all of them
allow you to enter raw RDATA (hex-encoded or whatever).
We've struggled with this in KITTEN WG. Deploying the URI RR type when
you're using a hosting service can be anywhere from annoying (must enter
raw RDATA) to impossible (the hosting service doesn't give a damn). I
suppose it's just a matter of time; perhaps things have improved since
we last looked.