Subject: Re: TXT records and what not to use them for

From: Paul A Vixie <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 Jul 1999 01:00:30 -0700

> Thomas's point about using the type code to get exactly the RRs you
> need is also well-taken.  Every few years somebody comes up with a
> scheme that boils down to putting some kind of sub-type code into the
> RDATA of an RR, so that we won't have to allocate new types.  Such
> schemes are understandable, but misguided.  If two conceptual kinds of
> RRs can be used independently, they should have distinct type codes.

maybe not.  distinct types turn out to be heavier-weight objects than
the fact of having 64K of them available would seem to indicate.  the
time it takes to get a new one implemented and in wide use is daunting.

this is also where donald's KS rr comes from.

---

From: Rob Austein <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 Jul 1999 10:49:02 -0400

Date: Thu, 01 Jul 1999 01:00:30 -0700
   From: Paul A Vixie <[email-masked]>

There are two separate issues here: (a) efficient use of network
resources, and (b) deployment of new specifications/software/etc.  (a)
argues for distinct types, (b) argues for the kitchen sink approach.
Which seems more important varies from year to year: at this
particular time in the Internet's history, we're not particularly
worried about congestive collapse and we are worried about getting new
DNS software deployed, so (b) probably seems more urgent this year,
but the tradeoff hasn't changed.

Also, as I know you know all too well, part of the difficulty in
deploying new types is just unfortunate implementation choices made
long ago by people who have long since repented their sins.

--Rob