RFC2136 provider about libdns

[KoHcoJlb]

Ok, so I will implement it this way and submit a PR.

[mholt]

Awesome, thanks for working on that!

Good question. I think a literal representation would be best. In other words, don't interpret the value at all. Don't interpret it as multiple values, just have it as-is. At least, that's my opinion/preference...

Aside: Perhaps we could add a Values() method to Record that could do the parsing as a convenience and return []string if it's a multi-value TXT record?

[KoHcoJlb]

By as-is do you mean leave it in zone file format?

In fact that's the way I started to implement it when I faced with this confusion which, though seems more logical to me, would require users to quote value if it contains whitespaces. Moreover library which I'm using always quotes value during serialization, which will be the case when querying records from the server.

So I wanted to know what current usage practice is and stick to it.

[mholt]

By as-is do you mean leave it in zone file format?

Yeah, I think so. libdns is a pretty low-level library, not really intended to interpret/parse record values. But I'd be OK with helper methods if there is a common need for some of that. But I don't think the low-level methods Add/Set/Delete/Update should do parsing/interpretation.

Anyway, this is a first for this question for libdns, so I'm just spitting out my initial thoughts here. What if we give it a try and then see how it works? We can add a helper method if needed.

[mholt]

Thanks! If it turns out too clunky, awkward, or unworkable, we can revise it. But let's start with it this way first and see.