Negotiation is handled via the SVCB "mandatory" mechanism: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9460#name-servicemode-rr-compatibilit
Basically, extensions are ignorable by default unless they are marked mandatory. If a record has a mandatory parameter that you don't understand, you skip that record. --Ben ________________________________ From: DNSOP <dnsop-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of John Levine <jo...@taugh.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2024 10:11 AM To: dnsop@ietf.org <dnsop@ietf.org> Cc: d...@fl1ger.de <d...@fl1ger.de> Subject: Re: [DNSOP] DNSOPComments on draft-dnsop-deleg-00.txt - section 1 !-------------------------------------------------------------------| This Message Is From an External Sender |-------------------------------------------------------------------! 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
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
