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

It is not just stupid to further overload TXT, it is impossible.

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.

On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com> wrote:

> On 29 Apr 2013, at 15:49, Edward Lewis <ed.lewis@neustar.biz> wrote:
>
> > The only concern is that pushing more data into TXT records is that, if
> more than one application does this and involves the same name, we are
> increasing the number of large RRsets pushed around.
>
> Nope. ALL the applications looking up TXT records will have to wade
> through a pile of them to find and make sense of the one(s) that are of
> specific interest. Good luck if > 1 of these TXT records have similar RDATA
> but are meant for use by different things. Though perhaps that's just a
> concern for dnsop or developers rather than this WG.
>
> Frankly, it's beyond stupid to overload TXT records now a unique RRtype
> code is simple to get (ha!) or some prefix convention could be applied:
> like adding _spf (say) to the QNAME so a big bunch of TXT records don't all
> have to sit at the same node in the tree.
>
> _______________________________________________
> dnsext mailing list
> dnsext@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext
>

-- 
Website: http://hallambaker.com/