On Saturday, March 03, 2012 05:05:08 PM Patrik Fältström wrote: > On 3 mar 2012, at 16:56, ned+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > Doubtful. If a record needs to have, say, a priority field, or a port > > number, given the existence of MX, SRV, and various other RRs it's > > going to be very difficult for the designers of said field to argue > > that that should be done as ASCII text that has to be parsed out to > > use. > > Agree with you but too many people today "just" program in perl och python > where the parsing is just a cast or similar, and they do not understand > this argument of yours -- which I once again completely stand behind > myself. There's a design trade off here that one should not over generalize about. Sometimes an ASCII text record will be fine, in other cases, it probably won't. Making the 'easy' case really easy so that new RRTypes get traction is a worthwhile goal. It certainly won't apply to all new RRTypes and so claims that it's not a universal solution don't mean it's not useful. Scott K _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf