On Thu, Feb 23, 2006 at 06:53:29PM -0800, Douglas Otis allegedly wrote:
By the time this size key is needed, hopefully DNSsec is also available.
Or more realistically RFC2671 published 1999 and on standards track.
There was not a suggestion to use a new binary record. The proposal
was to employ an existing record in a binary fashion.
I presume you mean to *change* an existing one to support the extra
Selector goop invent here (and yet to be invented in the coming
I also presume you have the support of the original authors and
consumers of your favoured alternative RR to make such changes and
extensions? Barging in on someone's favour RR and wanting to change it
without their support would prove to be a very painful, yes?
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to