On Thu, Feb 23, 2006 at 06:53:29PM -0800, Douglas Otis allegedly wrote: > By the time this size key is needed, hopefully DNSsec is also available.
Or more realistically RFC2671 published 1999 and on standards track. > There was not a suggestion to use a new binary record. The proposal > was to employ an existing record in a binary fashion. I presume you mean to *change* an existing one to support the extra Selector goop invent here (and yet to be invented in the coming months). I also presume you have the support of the original authors and consumers of your favoured alternative RR to make such changes and extensions? Barging in on someone's favour RR and wanting to change it without their support would prove to be a very painful, yes? Mark. _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
