Catching up with the discussion.... I like having two, well documented options. I do see where the option in David's draft has too many moving parts.
On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 11:20 AM, Dave Lawrence <t...@dd.org> wrote: > On 30/03/2017 09:52, Bob Harold wrote: > >> 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? > > Ray Bellis writes: > > IMHO, two options is better. > > I'm with Ray on this, both because of his earlier observation re: TXT, > and also because this complicates the option design and adds yet< > another number registry. > > _______________________________________________ > 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
