Re: suggested path and arch

ietf-mxcomp

Re: suggested path and arch

2004-06-11 15:05:14


Bob Atkinson wrote:

TXT is not a prototyping notion here; it's the mainstream deployment
option. [...] there's no point to a dedicated RR type

You've missed the arguments


Maybe I'm being overly dense, but I've been diving into the archives
and I may have missed the arguments too.

You and Jim Lyon have justified the need for a temporary representation
in TXT; please correct me if I'm wrong.

Cheers,
-- 
Luis Bruno                                UTM: 29T 629481E 4511776N 576m

[More with this subject...]

<Prev in Thread]	Current Thread	[Next in Thread>
suggested path and arch, Eric A. Hall RE: suggested path and arch, Bob Atkinson Re: suggested path and arch, Eric A. Hall Re: suggested path and arch, Luis Bruno <= RE: suggested path and arch, Edward Lewis Re: suggested path and arch, Alan DeKok RE: suggested path and arch, Hallam-Baker, Phillip RE: suggested path and arch, Hallam-Baker, Phillip RE: suggested path and arch, Edward Lewis Re: suggested path and arch, John Levine

Previous by Date:	Re: Alternative to TXT or new RR was: Comments on draft-ietf-marid-core-01 xml use, Markus Stumpf
Next by Date:	Re: MTAmark (was: Reality check please), Markus Stumpf
Previous by Thread:	Re: suggested path and arch, Eric A. Hall
Next by Thread:	RE: suggested path and arch, Edward Lewis
Indexes:	[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]