Re: [dnsext] loads of TXT records for fun and profit

[Nicholas Weaver <[e-mail]>]

On May 3, 2013, at 9:17 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker <[e-mail]> wrote:

> My point on TXT records and the 500 byte limit is that when you make a query for an unprefixed TXT record you are going to get ALL the records for all hacks that are overloading TXT with additional semantics. So the approach is not scalable which I think you agree with. 
> 
> 
> Getting a RR assignment isn't the pain point. The only reason for getting an assignment is to make it more likely we will get decent support in BIND etc.
> 
> I know all about the unknown RR coding. But that is second best support. What I am proposing is that we cut off a chunk of RR space that allows it to be used in a useful fashion without waiting for new deployments of BIND etc. 
> 
> Having to update BIND is second best in any case. The fewer updates and the fewer code paths to be verified, the better. Adding a new RR type to BIND only takes me a few hours. But writing the regression tests and the support infrastructure would be a lot more work and that is what it would be necessary to consider the code to be 'production'.

Why not instead just add a SECOND "unknown RTYPE encoding": a series of strings thats encoded like it is a TXT record.