Perhaps again I’ll be labelled as a potential troll for this. Again, using an
example for a non-specific comment...
On Apr 14, 2014, at 7:09, one person wrote:
At 10-04-14 21:54, someone else:
We already have too many parents that have I do not know how many
stupid rules for ...
While
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.
Best regards,
On 14 apr 2014, at 15:16, Matthijs Mekking matth...@nlnetlabs.nl 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
On 4/14/14, 9:21 AM, Patrik Fältström wrote:
On 14 apr 2014, at 15:16, Matthijs Mekking matth...@nlnetlabs.nl 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
In the world of trade-offs:
Having one record:
1) Can retrieve it in one query
2) Easier to specify what to publish and what to read
3) Parsing involved inspection of RDATA
Having two records:
1) Need two queries or rely on ANY
2) Have to explain to the client what to publish, server has to
