On 27/Feb/12 21:30, Patrik Fältström wrote: > > Yes, a pain. But...we just must be able to get new RRTypes > deployed. And not give up. I agree it is a praiseworthy task to pursue the diffusion of unknown RRTypes. However, it cannot be piggybacked on client protocols, that have their own difficulties and version life cycles. When it will be possible to deploy unknown types, protocols that nowadays reuse TXT will convert to their own type, taking advantage of binary formats and unambiguous querying. There have to be transition periods, during which TXT records are accepted for backward compatibility. However, when a new protocol's version implies using a different record type, backward compatibility should result from supporting the old version. To allow both TXT and a specific RRType --especially one that uses multiple bytes to encode a 4-bit version number-- to serve exactly the same protocol versions is an /unfounded excuse/ that does nothing to encourage the diffusion of that RRType. For SPF, it just doubled the number of queries. _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf