On Wed, 1 Jun 2016, Mark Andrews wrote:
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
What is missing in this discussion is that a URI allows for a weight, so
you can have clear primary and fallback sites configured through the URI
RRTYPE. That is starting become a little hack-ish when using TXT.
Adding new types is easy to do and should be something that is
expected to be done by all parts of the ecosystem. It's not like
we haven't been adding new types every year for the last 20 odd
years.
We shouldn't be letting substandard operators be holding up DNS
developments. There is absolutely nothing stopping anyone that
wants to deploy a new type from doing so other than FEAR. You can
always host your own servers if you have to.
+1
This is for a security mechanism. I'd hope you would pick a DNS hoster
that frequently updates their stuff if you are going to populate your
zone with DNS security information hosted by them.
The URI seems like an excellent fit for this draft.
Paul
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
