On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 12:48:05PM -0400, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: > I did propose a TXT record that could be used for unstructured config > and the DNS folk rejected it (as they always do). So I really don't > care how upset they get about the uses their comment field is being > put to. If we were starting from scratch we might well not bother with non-textual RDATA, or domainname compression (we'd zlib-compress all message payloads). As tempting as just-one-last-new-RRtype would be, a TXT-like RR with a sub-type prefix of its textual RDATA, the fact that there would be no easy way to select for RRs of this type and with a particular sub-type prefix means we'd probably end up being unhappy with it. Knowing little else about this, I'm inclined to believe that that "the DNS folk rejected it" with good reason. Nico --
