> On 30 Jan 2024, at 15:11, John Levine <jo...@taugh.com> wrote: > > 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.
There is no negotiation. If the resolver supports a subset of the available extension, great, pick one. The server side can add preference by using SvcPriority. Warmly, Roy _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
