John C Klensin wrote:
Still, the draft may assure new usages compatible with each
other.
That is the hope.
The problem is that an existing and an new usages may not be
compatible.
If we need subtypes because 16bit RRTYPE space is not enough
(I don't think so), the issue should be addressed by itself
by introducing a new RRTYPE (some considerations on subtype
dependent caching may be helpful), not TXT, which can assure
compatibilities between subtypes.
Again, I completely agree. But it isn't an issue for this
proposed registry.
With a new RRTYPE, new usages are assured to be compatible with
existing TXT usages.
Thanks,
Masataka Ohta