It appears that Patrik Fältström <[email protected]> said: >-=-=-=-=-=- > >On 15 Nov 2025, at 4:38, Dave Lawrence wrote: > >> Marco Davids \(IETF IMAP\) writes: >>> I'm working on a draft (draft-davids-forsalereg) in which TXT >>> records play an essential role. To avoid ambiguity I ended up >>> dedicating an entire section (5.2) to character encoding. >> >> Okay, cool. I think for a new definition like this you can just declare >> that the TXT RDATA should be interpreted as a continuous UTF-8 string >> without regard to the 255 >octet segment boundaries. It feels like maybe 5.2 has slightly too many words >for accomplishing this, but seems okay enough. > >No, you should not redefine an existing RRType. Create a new one if you feel >that is required. > >You can specifically "just compare" two series of Unicode strings by looking >at the bits, as equivalent of Unicode strings is something completely >different.
I hope you meant you cannot just compare them and expect to get a useful result. >So, just "no". Do not go there. I still think that a PRECIS profile could be useful in this case. _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
