Hi Patrik, Thanks for your message and your suggestion.
> > A few things: > > 1. Do not use TXT RR. We have already too much use of TXT, and you should > define a new RRType Ok , I think this is also Edward's opinion. > 2. There are multiple reasons why you should not use TXT record or even the > structure of the TXT RR, most notably the length of the "some human readable > text" portion. I suggest you have, just like in the URI RRType, the length of the > "some human readable text" be set by the length of the RR as a whole minus > the flag, reference no, header etc. That way the length can be longer than > what you otherwise can (in a TXT for example). You also do not end up having > trouble defining how to handle multiple strings in the RR, like you have if you > try to stuff things into a TXT. > 3. Think about (as you did in a later message) the owner as well as the RData. > The right prefix might be key to the usage pattern. Right, sounds reasonable. Thank you, Best, Hosnieh _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
