Re: [domainrep] A sentence that confuses me

["Murray S. Kucherawy" <[e-mail]>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan
> Sent: Monday, July 25, 2011 7:46 AM
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: [domainrep] A sentence that confuses me
> 
> In draft-kucherawy-reputation-query-dns-00, we have this:
> 
>    In line with [DNS-EXPAND], the TXT resource record type is used for
>    this application.
> 
> But RFC 5507 says this:
> 
>    We'll show how such a designer almost inevitably hits upon the idea
>    of just using a TXT Resource Record, why this is a bad thing, and why
>    a new Resource Record Type should be allocated instead.
> 
> How can these statements be reconciled?

My tendency toward using TXT is from the last several years of email authentication work, where variously the SPF, Sender-ID, DomainKeys and DKIM protocols and their various adjuncts all used TXT records to publish either keys or policies.  It's thus primarily there out of habit and not out of the idea that we have it right and the IAB got it wrong; I'd be fine with creating a new RR type if that's the current wisdom, apart from the fact that it will take some period of time for servers and resolvers both to begin supporting it.

This also presupposes that we get some buy-in from the community for putting this data in the DNS rather than creating a new UDP-based protocol.  I've heard arguments from both sides of that fence.

-MSK