This draft mentions the posibility of requiring a new resource record type. It isn't clear from the draft if the mention is in reference to the idea of using a new RR type in parallel with TXT for some period or if the idea is possibly deployment exclusively in the new RR type.
If it's the latter, I think that this would be an extraordinarily bad idea. In my opinion, if this protocol is going to require a new RR type to go forward, it will never get deployed. Recommend a new requirement that the protocol MUST NOT depend solely on a new DNS RR type just so there won't be any confusion on this. Scott K _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
