[19432] in Kerberos_V5_Development
Re: Kerberos transport DNS record design
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Matt Rogers)
Tue Jun 7 11:57:07 2016
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 11:56:53 -0400
From: Matt Rogers <mrogers@redhat.com>
To: Petr Spacek <pspacek@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <20160607155653.GD25205@mail.redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <5ff2eff1-f676-59ac-8c65-e17aa1029867@redhat.com>
Cc: krbdev@mit.edu
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: krbdev-bounces@mit.edu
On 06/01, Petr Spacek wrote:
>
> For the record, opinions of DNS gurus from dnsop list can be found in dnsop
> archives:
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/current/msg17526.html
>
> Message
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/current/msg17527.html
> indicates that it might be possible to standardize this if you try it.
>
> Message
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/current/msg17534.html
> argues that URI is good enough and that TXT is a bad practice.
>
>
> Pick an answer which suits you the best :-)
>
Since there is encouragement for URI here it seems like moving forward
with the URI is the right thing to do. If the hosting
provider/middle-box issue is something that we do not need to worry
about, is there still a downside to settling on the URI right now and
standardizing it in parallel? From the code standpoint there will not
be much difference vs. the TXT RR.
--
Matt Rogers
Red Hat, Inc
_______________________________________________
krbdev mailing list krbdev@mit.edu
https://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/krbdev
