On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 11:47 AM, Ray Bellis <r...@bellis.me.uk> wrote:
> > > On 29/03/2017 10:41, Dave Lawrence wrote: > > > Well yes, but there's another simple test, the limited Expert Review > > guidance against duplicate functionality. Both xpf and clientid > > provide the functionality of conveying an IP address in an EDNS0 > > option. > > Whilst you're correct that they both carry information that happens to > have the same format, they have different semantic intent, and it would > IMHO cause confusion if both were carried in a packet with the same > option code. > Just a thought - would it be better to have two different EDNS0 options that carry an IP, or to have one EDNS0 option that carries both an IP and a 'type', and allow multiples of that option in a packet? -- Bob Harold (Thinking separate options are probably simpler, but wanted to ask.) > > It's effectively the same argument about TXT records - there's plenty of > things that use TXT format, but it's preferred that separate RRTYPEs are > used to indicate the use case. > > Ray > >
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
