[36553] in Kerberos
Re: No mention of _kerberos TXT in RFCs / but we have DNSSEC now
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Ken Hornstein)
Thu Oct 16 23:15:53 2014
Message-Id: <201410170315.s9H3FcSZ017193@hedwig.cmf.nrl.navy.mil>
From: Ken Hornstein <kenh@cmf.nrl.navy.mil>
To: <kerberos@mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.GSO.1.10.1410162302040.27826@multics.mit.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-ID: <1400.1413515737.1@pendragon.internal>
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 23:15:37 -0400
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: kerberos-bounces@mit.edu
>I'm insufficiently motivated to go look at the krb-wg archives from 2002
>to see the discussion of why only the SRV records were incorporated and
>not the TXT ones.
I was one of the authors of the internet-draft that defined the TXT
records. As for why they weren't incorporated ... well, that would
involve digging up history that I'd rather not revisit (I do not believe
there was any public record of the reasoning, and that's one of the
things that I still feel raw about).
--Ken
________________________________________________
Kerberos mailing list Kerberos@mit.edu
https://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/kerberos
