fujiw...@jprs.co.jp writes: > Using unstructured data (TXT format) is not good.
Thanks for the feedback on that. I have wondered heavily on that topic. It was originally written as a text format, and we have a lot of other cases where such text parsing exists (SPF being an example). As the world moves more and more to text based parsing for everything, which I hardly say is a good thing, I wonder what the right format of future DNS records should be. It sounds like a good worthwhile discussion in its own right. In the mean time, a binary format for the record would be just fine in my view and the record already lends itself to such a format since it's very structured data. It would be worth discussing once the concept in the draft gets accepted for work by the WG. I'm (personally) certainly not opposed to a binary on-the-wire record format. > I think the multiple queries in one request is not related to DNSSEC > and TCP connection. They are separated elements. We dropped the requirement for TCP in the latest version already (-03). DNSSEC is necessary to avoid cache poisoning of illegal data (IE, to prove you're the parent of the data as opposed to a grand parent). -- Wes Hardaker Parsons _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop