On 4/14/14, 9:21 AM, Patrik Fältström wrote:
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
My first thought for this was "Why don't we use TXT records with a
specific format string to represent these"?
But then you would just realize I was making sure everyone was awake and
alert.
tim
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
