Actually Wes, it was absolutely bad for me making the poor assumption on the choices aligned between the email and the slide.
You are correct the preferred option we hear as the 16 bit value. On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 8:40 AM, Wes Hardaker <wjh...@hardakers.net> wrote: > Geoff Huston <g...@apnic.net> writes: > > >> I think the number 4 on the slide was different from the one in the > mail. > > > > > > I thought so too, but I wasn’t sure if it was me not paying attention > > in the WG meeting or not! > > Yes, you're both right. And absolutely my bad for writing the > presentation without looking at the mail I sent and synchronizing the > numbering. > > The preferred option in the room was the 16-bit value that would be used > in combination with the rcode to indicate the full meaning of the > extension value. > -- > Wes Hardaker > USC/ISI >
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
