Section 1: Current issues #1 says "use TXT or new RR? (ATB: new RR, but TXT for now)"
Is there a single person here who believes this? Once implemented as TXT, I give the odds of seeing a specific type record being implemented as less than zero. Pick one, don't tease. Section 2: I am vehemently against adding yet another large TXT record at the apex of zones. Everybody and their brother wants to jam something there. We are polluting the apex to such a point that it will no longer be possible to answer TXT queries via UDP even with EDNS. If you MUST use TXT, please prefix the name with an application-specific value. On 2/25/19 1:38 PM, Brotman, Alexander wrote: > Hello, > > Stephen and I have spent a bit of time working on a draft to be able to show > a relationship between two domains. We're aware this subject has been > covered a few times previously, especially in the DBOUND drafts, but we're > hopeful that a more simple approach might be more acceptable. The secondary > domain will create a DNS record that shows a link to a primary domain, and > the text should be able to be validated using the public key in a DNS record > the primary domain shares. This is something akin to DKIM, a mechanism that > the email world uses to ensure the contents of a message have not been > tampered with. > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-brotman-rdbd/ > > We'll request that replies relating to this be sent to the [email protected] > due to the nature of the topic, but it was suggested that we might want to > notify a few other lists for their awareness. Thank you for your > participation and comments. > > -- > Alex Brotman > Sr. Engineer, Anti-Abuse & Messaging Policy > Comcast > > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop > -- Michael Sheldon Dev-DNS Services GoDaddy.com _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
