Rough proposal for easier to search trees

One of the problems with EIP-1459 DNS discovery is that we have a hard time finding nodes with specific capabilities. In this scenario we would need to either store trees for different capabilites on different names, or download every single ENR and check if the node supports the capability.

Below we expand the root to link to seperate lists of trees, each of these trees are sub-divied into capabilities.

; name                        ttl     class type  content
@                             60      IN    TXT   enrtree-root:v1 t=foo seq=1 sig=o908WmNp7LibOfPsr4btQwatZJ5URBr2ZAuxvK4UWHlsB9sUOTJQaGAlLPVAhM__XJesCHxLISo94z5Z2a463gA
foo                           60      IN    TXT   e=JWXYDBPXYWG6FX3GMDIBFA6CJ4 l=C7HRFPF3BLGF3YR4DY5KX3SMBE c=2
C7HRFPF3BLGF3YR4DY5KX3SMBE    86900   IN    TXT   enrtree://[email protected]example.org
JWXYDBPXYWG6FX3GMDIBFA6CJ4    86900   IN    TXT   enrtree-branch:2XS2367YHAXJFGLZHVAWLQD4ZY,H4FHT4B454P6UXFD7JCYQ5PWDY,MHTDO6TMUBRIA2XWG5LUDACK24
2XS2367YHAXJFGLZHVAWLQD4ZY    86900   IN    TXT   enr:-HW4QOFzoVLaFJnNhbgMoDXPnOvcdVuj7pDpqRvh6BRDO68aVi5ZcjB3vzQRZH2IcLBGHzo8uUN3snqmgTiE56CH3AMBgmlkgnY0iXNlY3AyNTZrMaECC2_24YYkYHEgdzxlSNKQEnHhuNAbNlMlWJxrJxbAFvA
H4FHT4B454P6UXFD7JCYQ5PWDY    86900   IN    TXT   enr:-HW4QAggRauloj2SDLtIHN1XBkvhFZ1vtf1raYQp9TBW2RD5EEawDzbtSmlXUfnaHcvwOizhVYLtr7e6vw7NAf6mTuoCgmlkgnY0iXNlY3AyNTZrMaECjrXI8TLNXU0f8cthpAMxEshUyQlK-AM0PW2wfrnacNI
MHTDO6TMUBRIA2XWG5LUDACK24    86900   IN    TXT   enr:-HW4QLAYqmrwllBEnzWWs7I5Ev2IAs7x_dZlbYdRdMUx5EyKHDXp7AV5CkuPGUPdvbv1_Ms1CPfhcGCvSElSosZmyoqAgmlkgnY0iXNlY3AyNTZrMaECriawHKWdDRk2xeZkrOXBQ0dfMFLHY4eENZwdufn1S1o

The above shows a header which has trees at the record foo, the nodes in the trees at foo contain the capability marked as c of 2 which is lightnodes as found in the waku specification.

So based on the c=2, everything under foo is a lightnode? This makes the whole branch dedicated to a specific type of capability.

Can you see any problem with optionality (resolution of available capability) being a problem under this?