[mailto:owner-ietf-mxcomp(_at_)mail(_dot_)imc(_dot_)org]On Behalf Of Yakov
Shafranovich
Sent: Saturday, September 04, 2004 9:48 PM
Hadmut Danisch wrote:
I would add to that that others in the IETF may use MARID as a
precendent to argue for the use of TXT record. This may
quickly increase
the possible number of them. Therefore, I am for the prefix as well.
I beleive that prefixing is very likely to be necessary.
Pragmatically however we loose backwards compatibility with the
deployed base.
I think that if we take any step that loses backwards
compatibility then we should introduce a prefix. So if we have
versioning then we should have a prefix.
Losing backwards compatibilty for the sake of a prefix does
not seem like a good deal.
What I would like to do is to drop the idea of a new RR tag,
and define a prefix for use with the TXT record to be introduced
in the same way. In my view the RR tag value defines a syntax,
the prefix defines a semantics. There is no need to introduce
a new RR tag unless you require a new syntax, which MARID does
not.