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

[David Conrad <[e-mail]>]

Nicholas,

On May 3, 2013, at 6:18 AM, Nicholas Weaver <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> The SPF group knew when they were doing the draft that they were essentially making any other use of the TXT record infeasible in the future. Or at least I pointed that out.
> No its not, its trivial to further overload the text record.  

Not really. The ABNF of SPF does not take into account the order of RRs within an RRset is not guaranteed. The "v=spf1" version discriminator does not prefix each "term", it only prefixes a "record" and SPF terms can be split over multiple TXT records.

> And given the silly resistance amongst some in this group to tolerate allocating new RR types (look at the debate over the entirely sensible EUI48 and EUI64 RTYPEs),

The EUI48 and EUI64 RR types were allocated.  The 'silly resistance' came later.

> and the annoyance of getting authority software to allow one to provision new RTYPEs in an easily readable form [1],

Yep, that's a challenge, and hence the underscore label convention.  

> it makes perfect sense for developers who want to shove something into DNS to skip the whole IETF crap, create a convention, and shove things either in A-records (like the RBLs have done) or TXT records.

Yes, and the SPF community has greatly complicated (or removed) that capability for domains used in "MAIL FROM/HELO".

Regards,
-drc