Re: [dnsext] getting people to use new RRTYPEs

[Jim Reid <[e-mail]>]

On 26 Apr 2013, at 01:46, Mark Andrews <[e-mail]> wrote:

> The hardest thing is dealing with the naysayers.  The entire BS
> that keeps getting repeated that getting a RR type is hard.

It's not BS. Getting new RRtypes is easier than it used to be (in principle) but it is not easy.  Or at least, this WG creates the perception that it is not easy. Witness the recent pushback and BS around Joe's EUI{48,64} RRtypes. BWT, this was AFTER the RRtype Allocation Policy of RFC6895 had been followed and IANA had issued the type codes. That resistance from this WG -- "I'm in favour of liberalising type code assignments, but..." -- was not an isolated event.

It's disappointing but not surprising if others take the path of least resistance and go with a TXT record and avoid the hassle of the RFC6895 template and expert review. Not because that process is defective, but because the BS that tends to surface on this list. Having been on the receiving end of that treatment, I would think long and hard about coming to the IETF with a request for a new RRtype code instead of doing the "wrong" thing by following the herd and overloading the TXT record. Or just plucking a number from the reserved for private use range and hoping nobody else picks the same one.