On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 03:43:31PM -0700, Michael Thomas wrote: > The one thing that bugs me about DANE is its use of a native RR type. This > is a well trodden argument of doing it proper and doing it in a deployable > way. We know what happens when you do it the "right way" which is usually > nothing at all. If it started to get popular, we could gin up a TXT record > alternative though, I suppose. When we were doing DKIM at Cisco, our IT > folks were incredibly accommodating, but implementing a new RR type in their > infrastructure would have probably been a bridge too far. Heck, I wouldn't > be surprised if Mark at Y! got told the same thing :) Hmm, well, as they say, "new RR types are cheap", though more importantly document authors get forced to use new RR types rather than use TXT RRs. But tooling for hosting sites and such is a problem, yes, even if it isn't for servers and clients. But this is water under the bridge now. And if anything, the IETF is tripling down on more new RR types. Nico --
