Subj : src/tith/standards/TSP-0001.txt
To   : deon
From : Deuce
Date : Fri Nov 28 2025 22:31:44

  Re: src/tith/standards/TSP-0001.txt
  By: deon to Deuce on Fri Nov 28 2025 01:47 pm

 > Is this RFC 1464 that you speak of?
 >
 > It makes sense when the attribute=value is a "subset" of the think you are
 > querying, but you are using it twice which seems duplicative(?) to me.

Yeah, the RFC seems to be written assuming you would pile all the TXT records into a single key and get a big reply and pick them all apart.  This isn't great for UDP DNS resolution since it would quickly grow larger than the MTU and be much more susceptible to packet loss.

Existing uses generally use a single-letter bit before the = so they're minimally compliant, which I guess makes sense... so n= for sysop name and f= for iflags.  It's mostly there so it doesn't get eaten by strictly comforming DNS servers that would drop a TXT record without an = in it.

 > sysop=deon, and os=linux and bbs=synchronet, etc, but if I was to query
 > _sysop_alterant.bbs.dege.au, I would have thought it to be a better answer
 > to just say "deon", since sysop is the attribute I want to get the answer
 > to.

Yeah, "n=deon" is about the shortest it can be... updating the doc now.

 > RFC8552 I think is written with this approach in mind. Anyway, no biggie,
 > just providing feedback in case it might be useful.

Adding 8552 to references and switching the second _ to a -.

Definately useful feedback.
---
 þ Synchronet þ The future of BBSing

.