On Sun, 16 Feb 2014, Dave Crocker wrote:
On 2/16/2014 6:03 AM, Patrik Fältström wrote:
I think this email make exactly my point.
Please explain.
By way of anticipating your response, I should not have removed your key
conclusion:
"Unless that is put to rest, we can not do much at all."
That is demonstrably not true, as well as the claim of consensus about not
being able to do anything being wrong.
Needing TXT records is really a red herring. For instance, look at
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wouters-dane-openpgp-02
and the implementation in:
https://github.com/letoams/openpgpkey-milter
(with supporting https://github.com/letoams/hash-slinger/blob/master/openpgpkey
)
It uses a private use RRtype of 65280 and helps you create an RFC 3597
Generic Record type for records. At any time can now, I can ask for
an IANA registration - I've just waited a bit for a discussion and
WG adoption.
At no point in time did I need to use TXT records and at no point in
time did I need to modify DNS software. So yes, innovation via TXT record
has been put to rest a long long time ago.
The problem we have now is purely in process. During the last few IETF
meetings, I was always told I was a "guest" at DNSOPs, that it is the
wrong place for discussion about new RRtypes or EDNS options, and I've
been forced to use the DNSEXT mailing list of a closed WG. DNSOP needs
to broaden its charter, or we need to revive some kind of DNSEXT group.
So let's discuss WG scope and not TXT records.
Thanks,
Paul
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
