Re: [DNSOP] new Resource record?

["Hosnieh Rafiee" <[e-mail]>]

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