On 13-Nov-2006, at 22:45, Eric Allman wrote:
By putting the record in a subdomain we believe we have avoided the major issues associated with TXT records. I would not be surprised if someone proposes a new RR; if so we'll deal with that as the time comes. It just didn't seem necessary to add the friction associated with a new RR in order to get a reliable DKIM specified.
For the benefit of those who do not follow dnsext closely, what friction do you expect?
I wasn't holding a stopwatch, but the last RRtype assignment I saw striding by (the one documented in RFC 4421) seemed to be relatively straightforward.
Is the issue the assignment of a new RRtype, a practical consideration of implementation of the new RRtype in zone file parsers, an inability of particular implementations to handle opaque types, something else, or all of the above?
Joe _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf