On Fri, Jul 5, 2024 at 8:19 AM Petr Špaček <pspa...@isc.org> wrote:
> On 01. 07. 24 21:20, Paul Hoffman wrote: > > Thanks again for the input on the new RRTYPE. I submitted it to the > RRTYPE expert reviewers, and the new definition is posted at < > https://www.iana.org/assignments/dns-parameters/WALLET/wallet-completed-template>. > It has "2024-06-24" as its submission date. > > I wonder if it needs some words how to handle wallet addresses longer > than 255 characters? > > Maybe we safely leave this up to the application because the first field > should identify the type anyway ... Just thinking aloud. > I was wondering the same thing earlier, but forgot to chime in about it. What is the rationale for using "the same definition as the TXT record" for a new RR type? In practice applications that use TXT records (like SPF and DKIM) specify that they must concatenate all the up-to 255 character strings in the TXT RDATA before use. Why should a new RR-type be constrained in this way? It should define its RDATA components to be as large as they need to be. Shumon.
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- dnsop@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to dnsop-le...@ietf.org
