It appears that Ralf Weber <d...@fl1ger.de> said: >I agree that future extensions will require code changes, but having a >record type that is extensible from the start might make it easier to >deploy new parameters then it is to do a full RRTYPE, at least that is >the hope.
If the RRTYPE is extensible, how do two DNS servers negotiate which extensions they can handle? So far we have been fairly careful to add things in a way that either you do it or you don't and even that has problems we all have seen. R's, John _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
