Re: [dbound] department of poor memory, was Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-dcrocker-dns-perimeter-00.txt

["John R. Levine" <[e-mail]>]

I just reread my draft draft-levine-dbound-dns-01 and see that I'd 
forgotten that it says that the design would work the same with TXT 
records as with a new rrtype, since the nodes are all under prefixed 
_bound names.  See section 9 on page 8.

If you want to compare apples to apples, you might want to adjust the 
draft to compare your prefixed TXT records to my prefixed TXT records.

R's,
John

On Wed, 3 Apr 2019, John R. Levine wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Apr 2019, Dave Crocker wrote:
>>  On 4/3/2019 12:19 PM, tjw ietf wrote:
>>>   I was going to say CAA but that’s 6 years old.
>>  5 was a random number.  I was merely meaning 'recent'.
>>
>>  But suggesting CAA in response to my query means that you think RFC 6844
>>  has received widespread -- ie, at scale -- end to end adoption and use.
>
> Every CA is supposed to check CAA records before issuing a cert to see if 
> they're allowed to issue it.  I know Let's Encrypt does and I suppose I can 
> ask them how many CAA records they see.
>
>>  Please forgive my skepticism.
>
> Well, OK, here's a question for you: when's the last time an RFC added a 
> feature to the DNS that puts records in the additional section triggered by a 
> specific label in the query?  I'm reasonably sure the answer is "never" but 
> you might ask dnsop to be sure.