Mark Delany wrote:
3. verifiers that see q=<newRR> SHOULD query for that RR but MAY query for
the TXT.
Single query, no matter what the situation. No failures, so no fallbacks.
Right. I conflated the need to support both types by the sender with
the need for a fallback query. So the fallback is eliminated, but the
sender may need to support both record types forever.
well, probably not forever. only during the transition period and that's not
likely to be longer than twenty years...
The next question is whether this is a good strategy for RR adoption
or not and whether that should be considered.
I think that specialized RRs are better than generic TXTs, so we should try to
use them. However relying on their use immediately would be unduly risky, in my
view. So this hybrid approach includes them and uses them when possible, but
does not put end-to-end support of them into the critical path.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
<http://bbiw.net>
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html