Re: moving forward on draft-lear-httpbis-svcinfo-rr

[Martin Thomson <[e-mail]>]

I'm not saying that it's a good design, but...

DKIM uses an underscore prefixed sub-domain and TXT.

On 11 February 2013 07:54, Phillip Hallam-Baker <[e-mail]> wrote:
> We really should not be using TXT here because any record that is specific
> to a protocol needs to have a prefix so that a query can be made for just
> the records relevant to that protocol. Otherwise the DNS UDP response limit
> is quickly exceeded.
>
> I much prefer to go for a text encoded tag value pair approach for
> application level attributes because that allows the same syntax to be used
> in the HTTP (or whatever) header and the DNS record.
>
> More generally though, I think that if we are going to introduce a new
> record it should be a record that allows for more than just HTTP version
> agility which is essentially one bit of information. Making a UDP round trip
> for a single bit of information seems excessive.
>
> I would rather see any DNS work as being an application layer proposal that
> should support all application transports and in particular allow
> negotiation between HTTP, HTTPS and COAP transports.
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 10:25 AM, Eliot Lear <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> [Note I'm on vacation and avoiding the computer]
>>
>> On 2/11/13 6:17 AM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> > Eliot - a major portion of the conversation was about whether this would
>> > be in a new record type vs. in a TXT record. Do you plan to address that in
>> > your next draft?
>> >
>>
>> I think the conversation was about whether to a use a text formed record
>> rather than a binary encoded one.  Using TXT wouldn't be a good idea for
>> any number of reasons.
>>
>> Eliot
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Website: http://hallambaker.com/