[ietf-dkim] Today's jabber

[Michael Thomas]

Ah, I understand. Seems to me that we should have TXT in -base as now, 
and just
reference the appropriate sections of -base for the semantics of the 
TLV's in DKK.
Also:  subsequent revisions could choose to extend TXT, DKK or both as 
needed.

       Mike

Mark Delany wrote:

>On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 11:55:51AM -0700, Michael Thomas allegedly wrote:
>  
>
>>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? 
>>    
>>
>
>Simply to avoid duplication of semantics. I was merely asking which
>text is the source of truth and where should it reside. Also,
>presumably if a DKK springs into existence, the TXT may well be frozen
>at some point with new functionality only going into the DKK RR.
>
>
>Mark.
>_______________________________________________
>NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
>http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
>  
>