Tony, as it turns out I had already edited in some changes --- I'll
check to make sure they are consistent with what you propose.
One change I made (tentatively) is to use the "options" part to
indicate the record type --- so base defines "dns/txt" only, with a
mention that we expect a "dns/dkk" type to appear later.
All: any thoughts on whether this is a good idea?
--On May 18, 2006 12:31:43 PM -0400 Tony Hansen <tony(_at_)att(_dot_)com> wrote:
One of the topics from today's jabber session was how to handle DNS
queries with the advent of a DNS RR record in the future. Do we
keep the TXT references in the current document? Do we make
references to the DNS RR record? Do we define in base how to
cascade from RR to TXT? It all boils down to the question of "what
does q=dns" mean.
My suggestion in the jabber session was:
1) making q=dns mean *only* a DNS TXT lookup,
2) define that lookup within base
3) when the DNS RR draft comes out, it would also define a new q=
value, something like dnsrr, that says to do a lookup using new
DNS RR record.
4) given that q= can take a list, the question of handling both
RR and TXT records could be denoted by using q=dnsrr,dns, rather
than saying that q=dnsrr should search both.
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to