On Aug 19, 2013, at 10:14 PM, Randy Bush <randy@xxxxxxx> wrote: > so, according to your message, one lesson i might take from this is, if > i want to deploy a new hack which needs an rrtype, not to use txt in the > interim. i will be caught in a mess which will appear to be of my own > making. is that somewhat correct? Not exactly. Given the situation at the time (specifically, the difficulty getting new RR types -- a problem since fixed), I believe the use of TXT was appropriate. Unfortunately, the migration strategy away from TXT was flawed. My personal belief is that the rationale to migrate away from TXT remains valid and the appropriate course of action is to fix the migration strategy, not permanently encode what everyone agrees is a hack into a proposed standard. Regards, -drc