Re: [DNSOP] Proposal for a new record type: SNI

"John Levine" <> Tue, 14 February 2017 22:19 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F01B129863 for <>; Tue, 14 Feb 2017 14:19:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PB6T4PcMOjVs for <>; Tue, 14 Feb 2017 14:19:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:1f06:1126::2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DD0BC1294BA for <>; Tue, 14 Feb 2017 14:19:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 4456 invoked from network); 14 Feb 2017 22:19:47 -0000
Received: from unknown ( by with QMQP; 14 Feb 2017 22:19:47 -0000
Date: 14 Feb 2017 22:19:25 -0000
Message-ID: <20170214221925.15515.qmail@ary.lan>
From: "John Levine" <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Proposal for a new record type: SNI
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 22:19:49 -0000

In article <> you write:
>   We could encode this information in a TXT record, but that would
>   violate the intended purpose of TXT records: to convey information to
>   human readers.
>I'm not sure if it's true that TXT records are intended only for human
>consumption. TXT RRs contain "descriptive text" where "[t]he semantics
>of the text depends on the domain where it is found".

That horse left the barn at least a decade ago, before SPF, DKIM,
DMARC, and a lot of other TXT records primarily intended to be
consumed by computers.  Humans can read them, but this human can't do
much with records like this: IN TXT "google-site-verification=7SCAvuZtE7dOCpG0drHDEBOqco9JnPzFUIUBSgU3eWc"

Whether to use a TXT record is of course a subsidiary question to
whether DNS SNI indirection is a good idea in the first place.