Andrew, At 2016-03-04 09:38:26 -0500 Andrew Sullivan <a...@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote: > I've submitted a draft about the general lack of utility of DNS > classes. I am not requesting DNSOP adoption, but I'd welcome any > comments you might have.
I generally consider CLASS to be 2 bytes in every RR that we'll never get back. :( I'm not sure about some of the details in this draft. Section 2.1 "Class data is in the wrong part of a resource record" says that you can't have a server for class IE at the same time as EG, right? (At least as the protocol is currently defined.) That's not the same as saying that if you have IE then EG is impossible, right? Section 2.3 seems to be the most compelling to me. I think there may also be a missing "Section 2.4", which is "most software only supports IN with some special-casing for CH", and perhaps "adding a new class is likely to break loads of stuff", and also "how do I specify 'class' when I type in google.com?" In the end, I'd suggest not including Section 4 "define new RRTYPEs for all classes" and instead make Section 3 stronger and declare classes as only CH for special cases, IN for everything else, and I guess don't break on HS because MIT? Cheers, -- Shane
pgpIFpxm4NdTW.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
