On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 2:27 PM Nico Williams <nico@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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. Hey, as long as you are going with a sub-type, and the like, might as well revive this RR, which already has type 40 allocated: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-eastlake-kitchen-sink-02 Thanks, Donald =============================== Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA d3e3e3@xxxxxxxxx > Nico
