>Main arguments for using TXT instead of URI RR type are: >... >> We had been planning to use the URI record type, but after a recent >> round of discussion, we don't think it's likely that popular DNS hosting >> providers will allow customers to create URI records (since it seems >> like no one else is using them). Some middle-boxes would also block DNS >> queries for URI records. That problem would be even worse if we create >> a new record type. So, we are planning to use the TXT record type. It >> seems unlikely that we can standardize on a TXT record through the IETF >> (except perhaps as an informational RFC), but it seems like the only >> deployable option for individuals and small organizations >... > >Could someone validate these assumptions?
They are all correct except for the bit about not being able to standardize TXT records. There are plenty of standards track RFCs that use TXT records with _prefix names, notably DKIM, RFC 6376. You may be thinking about the kerfuffle about SPF and RFC 4408, but SPF for reasons that made some sense a decade ago uses TXT records with unprefixed names. Don't do that. R's, John _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
