Base section 3.5 currently defines both a set of values expected to be
found by any query mechanism, and a representation of the values when
provided by any textually-formatted query mechanism. The discussion of
q=dns then constrains itself to using the textual format within the TXT
RR record.
Perhaps section 3.5 should be rewritten to make that separation more
explicit:
3.5.1 name/value pairs returned by any query mechanism
3.5.2 a textual-format for representing those values
If this were done, I would have no problem with punting the semantics of
the DKK name/value pairs to section 3.5.1. And then the DKK draft would
define exactly two things:
* the q= parameter name and/or options
* the syntax of the record
This also provides a basic template for any future query mechanisms.
Tony Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mark Delany wrote:
>> OLD: TXT records are encoded as described in Section 3.6.1.
>
> So I've circulated the draft DKK to a couple of people to get the
> roughest edges off.
>
> One of the big questions asked in that draft relates to the
> relationship between TXT and DKK semantics. Which one is authoritative
> and which one is a mirror? Or should base be authoritative and both
> the TXT and DKK simply be particular representations?
>
> I guess by way of example. The MX RR only defines the contents and not
> the semantics, so perhaps DKK and TXT should do similar with the
> semantics defined in the base?
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
