Is the URI RR type the right choice?

peacekeeper commented 2 years ago

The specification currently uses URI RRs.

DNSSEC uses DNSKEY and other RR types.
DKIM uses TXT RR types.
URI RRs may not be widely supported (e.g. Gandi doesn't support them). OTOH this should probably be not the main concern when choosing which RR type is most appropriate; semantics and functionality should matter more than implementation support.

morgatron commented 1 year ago

Any further thought on this?

We've just been looking at supporting did:dns, but may not be able to because we need to support route 53 (AWS) domains. And of course route 53 doesn't support URI RRs.

peacekeeper commented 1 year ago

I don't know much about AWS, but I agree that URI records don't seem to be as widely supported as other record types such as TXT.

The goal of the current design with URI records was to minimize the amount of data in the zone files, therefore it made sense to put did:key entries into the URI records.

But instead we could also use TXT records that would contain an entire DID document, or parts of a DID document. I believe @tmarkovski has had some thoughts on this. If there is some shared interest in this, we could try to re-write the spec to use those record types instead.

danubetech / did-method-dns

Is the URI RR type the right choice? #8