Re: [Add] Comparative DoH Discovery DNS RR Types

[Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>]

Paul Vixie <[e-mail]> wrote:
    >> Just noting far we have a variety of suggestions on CNAME, URI, TXT, RESINFO
    >> and HTTPSSVC (though I don’t think all have I-Ds as yet) - always nice to
    >> see the ideas flowing. :-) As a practical person that in IETF land is
    >> considered an implementer, I naturally feel inclined towards RR types that
    >> already exist as this enables something to be rapidly deployed.

    > the community apparently lacks coherence on the importance of rapid deployment
    > as compared to the importance of technical excellence. if we're not going to
    > add any more new RR types because they take ten years to become usable (see
    > the SPF RR vs. the later _spf TXT RR), we should say that, and close the RR
    > type registry, so as to avoid confusing newcomers.

    > if on the other hand we're going to continue to evolve DNS in ways that
    > include adding new RR types, and all the initiators who are stuck behind
    > dumbass middleboxes who reject or butcher unknown RR types are going to fail
    > hard and be excluded from the new applications and protocols in order to put
    > more pressure on middlebox users/makers/distributors, we should say that.

    > either way, nothing is temporary. whatever we use for resolver
    > discovery will

I'm with Paul. I prefer creating new RR types.
There aren't that many dumbass middleboxes around, and those that are there,
are usually put there intentionally, and they deserve what they get.

I was among the first who did that back in 2002, and it wasn't that hard.

--
]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        |    IoT architect   [
]     [e-mail]  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [