Dear DNSOP Working Group, I want to thank everyone for the extensive and thoughtful feedback on my draft "Prefixed TXT Records as Transition Mechanism for New RR Types." After careful consideration of all comments, I think the general sentiment I got is to advise me to withdraw the current draft, and I decide to follow your advice.
However, I believe there's value in documenting this discussion for future reference. Do you think it would make sense to create an informational RFC titled "Considerations Against Using TXT Records as a Transition Mechanism for New RR Types" that would: 1. Document the rationale against using prefixed TXT records as a transition mechanism 2. Summarize the historical lessons from SPF and other attempts at dual-path approaches 4. Address common misconceptions about DNS extensibility (that I myself held) My motivation is simple: I started out thinking prefixed TXT records for progressive adoption of new RR types would be a good idea, but this working group has convincingly demonstrated otherwise. An informational RFC would help prevent others from going down the same path and provide guidance on proper DNS extension methods. Would there be interest in such an informational document? Best regards, Victor Zhou
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- dnsop@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to dnsop-le...@ietf.org
