Hello, On Fri, 2021-02-19 at 13:21 -0800, cpol...@surewest.net wrote: > On 2021-02-19 18:45, Havard Eidnes wrote: > > However, "burning" a new RR just for this purpose seems to me to > > not be necessary, so I favour the scheme in 5.6 using a TXT > > record instead. > > My reading of RFC 5507 "Design Choices When Expanding the DNS" > ยง6 ( https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5507#section-6 ): > > ... of all the alternate solutions, the "obvious" approach of using > TXT Resource Records for arbitrary names is almost certainly the > worst ... > > seems to favor "burning" a new RR "just for this purpose". > While RFC 5507 is informational, it does consider the general > problem (new RR vs. TXT) in some detail.
5507 is an absolutely excellent document, that cannot be summarised by its conclusion. In this case, it turns out that most of the reasons given in the full text, leading up to the 'burn an RRtype' conclusion, do not really apply to catalog zones. We do not have wildcards, and we do not have UDP message size constraints, the zones will not be queried by random tools that might have unrelated semantics. I'm not arguing that catalog zones -should- use TXT for everything (because that would be terrible); but the firmess of 5507's conclusion does not fully apply here. Kind regards, -- Peter van Dijk PowerDNS.COM BV - https://www.powerdns.com/ _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
