It appears that Joe Abley <jab...@strandkip.nl> said: >(c) write some guidance for future applications of the form "basically TXT but >with a different RRTYPE" to make things as cookie-cutter as >possible for implementers, and add a question to the application template of >the form "explain why you can't just use the cookie-cutter approach >described in RFCxxx" with some guidance for expert reviewers in assessing the >answer.
Nononononononono. >Personally I think underscore labels are a better and cheaper solution for a >lot of applications, which makes me like (b). But I appreciate >other people think differently and perhaps are already OMG NO PLEASE NOT AGAIN >about the idea of restarting that conversation. The sad and not sufficiently short history of the type 99 SPF record type tells us that if something looks like a TXT record, make it a TXT record. Then use an underscore _name to distinguish it from all the other TXT records. We have lots of experience that tells us that works quite well. Having looked at the registration for the wallet type, I don't see anything that wouldn't work just as well as a TXT record with a _wallet label. If you wanted you could tag the coin type in the name, _eth._wallet, _doge._wallet, but I'm guessing people would prefer to keep the coin type in the data so a single fetch of _wallet.blah gets everything in the wallet. R's, John _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- dnsop@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to dnsop-le...@ietf.org
