>>>>> "John" == John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> writes:
John> I think the rest is a bit of a judgment call. While I'd be
John> happy to see a comprehensive document that would address all
John> of those issues, I would also like to get a good description
John> of the RRTYPE published somewhere soon, ideally a couple of
John> years ago. It seems to me that making a complete analysis of
John> security alternatives, or a complete analysis of the URI
John> situation as it relates to this RRTYPE, much less both are
John> likely to be a _lot_ of effort and that, if we want to get the
John> document published, what should be done should probably be
John> confined to explicitly noting the issues, e.g., that any
John> indirection through the DNS raises security issues that need
John> careful understanding and for which there is no magic bullet.
I'm happy with an informational document that does the above and claims
only to describe the existing RR type.
I'm not happy with a standards-track document that fails to cover the
security issues in significantly better detail.