Mark Delany wrote:
OLD: TXT records are encoded as described in Section 3.6.1.
So I've circulated the draft DKK to a couple of people to get the
roughest edges off.
One of the big questions asked in that draft relates to the
relationship between TXT and DKK semantics. Which one is authoritative
and which one is a mirror? Or should base be authoritative and both
the TXT and DKK simply be particular representations?
Is there really any reason to force one to be the master of the other?
What would
that even mean for a receiver? I sort of thought of the
q=dns/dkk:dns/txt as first
to try order, and that both would at least get you a baseline of the
same information
as needed in -base.
Mike
I guess by way of example. The MX RR only defines the contents and not
the semantics, so perhaps DKK and TXT should do similar with the
semantics defined in the base?
Mark.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html