Bob, On Thu, Mar 6, 2025 at 12:05 PM Bob Harold <rharo...@umich.edu> wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 6, 2025 at 1:44 PM Victor Zhou <z...@namefi.io> wrote: > >> >>> We already have a problem with too many TXT records with the same name >>> used for different purposes. SPF, various validations, and who knows what >>> else are all at the same name. Could we do instead: >>> _RFCxxxx.domain.name IN TXT "<data>" >>> >>> That reduces the packet size and the amount of records that the >>> application has to process and discard, since it will only ask for its own >>> records. >>> >> >> Agree with you Bob that this is an important decision (whether to do it >> subdomain or as apex), I can include your feedback in the updated RFC, >> >> Here is what I think the tradeoffs of each: (please correct me as wrong) >> >> - Subdomain approach (`_rfcxxx.domain.name IN TEXT "<data>"`) is usually >> managed in a zone *under* `domain.name`, making it more separate, and >> less spammy, and enable larger numbers of records >> > > The subdomain records would typically be in the same zone. They *can" be > separated into another zone, if desired. > > >> - Apex TXT approach is usually managed in the zone *of* `domain.name`, >> making it easier to manage, and if the parent zone want to delegate child >> zone out, having apex TXT record method doesn't interfere with that too. >> > > It would be impossible to delegate TXT records as a separate zone in this > case. They are in the same zone as the 'domain.name' and whatever other > records that name has. > Yes to what you said, Bob. What I wanted to highlight a possible consideration is that from the perspective of "name" TLD (in our `_rfcxxx.domain.name` example), the ` domain.name` is usually delegating to the zone of `domain.name` (SLD). apex TXT is always associated with whoever manages `domain.name`. But _ rfcxxx.domain.name is managed by whoever zone manages _rfcxxx.domain.name, it could be the same zone of domain.name but also could be its own. One potential unintended consequence may be people starting to use different RR types for _rfcxxx.domain.name or even subdomains under <foo>._ rfcxxx.domain.name. This potential unintended consequence may be good and may be bad. I am personally open to either way. My plan is to present this pending decision in RFC to the WG and ask for a preferred option. > -- > Bob Harold > >> >> >>> >>> -- >>> Bob Harold >>> >>> >>
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- dnsop@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to dnsop-le...@ietf.org
