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

[Foundation <[e-mail]>]

Hi Stephane (and Paul),

Thanks for the feedback. I completely agree. `UTXO` is way too specific for a protocol-level RRTYPE.

The `[Type Indicator] + [Binary Data]` structure you proposed makes perfect sense. It aligns well with Paul's suggestion to keep it generic. The revised direction is clear, and we will proceed with the following:

1. Mnemonic: We will use `CONTAINER` (Paul's suggestion) or `BINARY` (your suggestion), whichever the IANA Expert prefers.
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.
3. Application Semantics: Any application (e.g., `_utxo`) will use an underscore prefix at the owner name level to identify its schema.

I will update the template and submit the revision to IANA under ticket #1495165 based on this consensus 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 20:40:50
收件人：Paul Wouters<paul=[e-mail]>
抄　送：Foundation<[e-mail]>; dns-rrtype-applications<[e-mail]>; <[e-mail]>
主　题：Re: RRTYPE Application: UTXO (Data RR)

On Tue, Oct 27, 2026 at 01:31:21PM -0400,
 Paul Wouters <paul=[e-mail]> wrote 
 a message of 76 lines which said:

> This possibly jsutifies an RRtype that can be used to ship CBOR endcoded
> payloads, but then it should not be called UTXO but be kept rather
> generic like perhaps CBORDATA, so other applications with similar
> requirements could use it without confusion.

Or even more generic: a RRtype BINARY with two fields in the data, a
short one to indicate the type and the binary data. This would work
for all the cases where you just want to send opaque binary data,
without any processing except in the end points.

I agree that UTX0 is way too specific.