if we defined them as 'ignored' for now, could we repurpose them in some mythical future?
I have a feeling we did this with things like the ToS bits in the original v4 packet, given that diffserve didn't exist when they were first defined, or .. did I just find the time machine? -G On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 4:50 PM, Shane Kerr <sh...@time-travellers.org> wrote: > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list > DNSOP@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop > _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
