Kerberos transport DNS record design

[Matt Rogers]

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