On 30 aug 2013, at 21:35, John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> The "more prefixes" versus "more RRTYPES" versus subtypes versus
> pushing some of these ideas into a different CLASS versus
> whatever else one can think of are also very interesting... and
> have nothing to do with whether this registry should be created
> or what belongs in it.
One of the key messages in RFC 5507 is that one should have a selector of what RR you want in the triple {owner, type, class} and not as part of the RDATA.
This document is about creating a registry for the selectors that obviously are needed *IF* one have structured data in the RDATA part of the TXT resource record type.
Two very different things indeed.
Patrik