Re: [Add] Comparative DoH Discovery DNS RR Types

[Paul Vixie <[e-mail]>]

On Monday, 29 June 2020 15:36:42 UTC Livingood, Jason 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 
be present as a data pattern and code path in all future software. improved 
signal patterns and associated logic will live alongside the unimproved ones, 
raising the bar for both short-term expedients and later improvement to be 
"worthy of its coexistence cost". for clarity, that's a _very_ high bar.
 
> As all of these become documented a discussed a bit further - or even tested
> experimentally - my humble suggestion is that it may be helpful for the WG
> to develop a grid of all the options with their associated pros & cons.

such grid would be well informed by the attached graphic.

-- 
Paul