On 14 apr 2014, at 15:16, Matthijs Mekking <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 04/14/2014 03:05 PM, Edward Lewis wrote:
>> I think it is silly to burn two RR types to communicate the same
>> thing. You’re inviting debate on testing and handling the two being
>> out of sync.
>
> Would you prefer one RR type with varying RDATA format (like with
> IPSECKEY)? I don't.
...or NAPTR...
No thank you. :-)
I.e. completely agree with Matthijs!
You want RRTypes that are designed so that the triple {owner,class,type} do
select an RRSet that is appropriate for whatever use it has.
Patrik
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
