On 13 May 2019, at 15:08, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoff...@icann.org> wrote:
> On May 13, 2019, at 3:00 PM, Evan Hunt <e...@isc.org> wrote: > >> On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 07:47:35AM +0000, Paul Hoffman wrote: >>> A far easier approach is for any developer to feel free to treat these >>> RRtypes as unknown RRtypes. >> >> I'm not sure I understand the distinction you're making here? >> What you said sounds similar to what the document proposes, so >> perhaps the document is unclear, or perhaps I've misunderstood you. > > I am proposing that we don't need a document, nor changes to the IANA > registry: just treat whatever RRtypes you as a developer feel are no longer > used as unknown types and move on. The canonical representation of zones and RRSets can't really exist if there are no common rules about which RRTYPEs should be represented in type-specific format and which should be shown in generic/RFC3597 form. If individual implementations differed in their opinions about what is used and what is obsolete it would surely cause headaches. I would prefer documented agreement about what is obsolete and what is not. Joe
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
