It appears that Shumon Huque <shu...@gmail.com> said: >2.) As for the "NXNAME" rrtype, I'd like to propose using rrtype 0 ... >> If I didn't get the math wrong, it would also save 11 bytes in the type >> bitmap (compared to using the lowest available meta type code, 128), >> slightly reducing the chance of packet size issues e.g. when double-signing >> etc. >> > >I'm a bit allergic to re-using an RR type already designated for another >purpose.
It seems like a poor economy. If you really are worried about making the bitmap smaller, I suppose there's unused type 54. Anyone who's using DNSSEC is already prepared for large responses so I wouldn't worry about it. R's, John _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
