[DNSOP] 回复：RRTYPE Application: UTXO (Data RR)

[Foundation <[e-mail]>]

Hi Stephane,

Thanks for the clear and concise explanation. 

We will adopt this simpler approach:

1. The RDATA will no longer contain an internal type field. It will be a pure, opaque byte stream.
2. All application semantics and data formats (e.g., CBOR) will be strictly identified by the owner name prefix (e.g., `_utxo`).
3. Given that the RDATA is now purely binary with no internal structure, we wonder if the mnemonic `BINARY` (as you suggested earlier) would be a better fit than `CONTAINER`? We will leave the final naming decision to the Expert.

I will update the IANA template to reflect this simplified structure and submit the revision under ticket #1495165 shortly.

Best regards,
Guorong Tian



来自阿里邮箱Android客户端------------------------------------------------------------------
发件人：Stephane Bortzmeyer<[e-mail]>
日　期：2026年10月28日 23:00:32
收件人：Foundation<[e-mail]>
抄　送：<[e-mail]>
主　题：Re: 回复：RRTYPE Application: UTXO (Data RR)

On Wed, Oct 28, 2026 at 10:47:45PM +0800,
 Foundation <[e-mail]> wrote 
 a message of 185 lines which said:

> 2. RDATA Format: We will define a generic opaque binary
> structure. The first field will be a short type indicator (e.g.,
> `0x01` for CBOR), followed by the raw binary payload.

An alternative, as suggested by Ray, would be to use only the
underscored prefix to indicate the type. (The type field has a
limitation: you cannot query all BINARY records having a specific
field type. While you can query all records with a given prefix.)