John C Klensin wrote:
>> Still, the draft may assure new usages compatible with each
>> other.
>
> That is the hope.
The problem is that an existing and an new usages may not be
compatible.
>> If we need subtypes because 16bit RRTYPE space is not enough
>> (I don't think so), the issue should be addressed by itself
>> by introducing a new RRTYPE (some considerations on subtype
>> dependent caching may be helpful), not TXT, which can assure
>> compatibilities between subtypes.
>
> Again, I completely agree. But it isn't an issue for this
> proposed registry.
With a new RRTYPE, new usages are assured to be compatible with
existing TXT usages.
Thanks,
Masataka Ohta
