Hey, On 18 Sep 2024, at 09:35, Shay C <shay@d3.email> wrote:
> The draft currently overloads the TXT record RRtype. WALLET record type > would be appropriate but does have the issue that adoption isn't complete yet. I don't know exactly what you mean by "adoption". The code-point is assigned. If you mean it might take a long time for a critical mass of DNS implementations to provide support for the WALLET RRType (e.g. in presentation format, provisioning workflows, etc) and that it's difficult to know what "complete" means in this sense then yes, this is an issue for all new RRTypes. But see also RFC 3597. > Would it be recommended to do a proposal that use either RRtype (TXT or > WALLET) or choose one? I haven't read your proposal and don't have an opinion on that. I agree that it sounds like a good question for you to ask yourself. Joe _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- dnsop@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to dnsop-le...@ietf.org
