Scott Kitterman wrote:
I'd be satisfied if the requirements draft were to say:
The protocol MUST NOT require use of a new DNS RR type. The protocol MAY
allow for optional use of a new RR type.
But wouldn't that decide the issue in that the consequence of the above
would be that the protocol MUST mandate use of TXT (or some other
existing) records? Maybe I'm missing something though.
If so, I think that silence on this in the requirements draft is best,
but keeping the issue open in the tracker so we do have the debate later
on.
S.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html