Andrew, At 2016-03-15 21:05:32 -0400 Andrew Sullivan <a...@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote: > > 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?" > > On the "most software" claim, I fear I haven't done the survey and > don't even know how to start. That's why you only see the discussion > of some people hard-wiring IN. That part I know happens, because I've > seen it.
Hm... good point. I also haven't done a survey, although I have seen hard-wired IN and CH on occasion. [...] > > 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? > > Are you arguing that this draft should be stronger, and recommend > closing the registry? That's how I started out, and I shied away > because it seemed like work for little benefit. But I could restore > that text :) It'd be a bigger deal, though, because it would then need > to update the DNS registry IANA considerations document. As you point out, from a practical point of view the registry is pointless because you really can't add classes to DNS. So I think that closing the registry is a good idea. Cheers, -- Shane
pgpUo_bu3KP2o.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
