On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 10:52:59AM +0200, Martin Hoffmann wrote: > Paul Hoffman wrote: > > A far easier approach is for any developer to feel free to treat > > these RRtypes as unknown RRtypes. > > That will work for all record types except those defined in RFC 1035 > since name compression in record data is allowed for them.
Yes, that's exactly the problem that needs addressing. Those specific types, defined in 1035 and containing names in the rdata, cannot now be treated as opaque by a compliant server. We *have to* implement them so we can handle name compression and canonicalization correctly, even though nobody's used them for donkey's years (some of them were already labeled "obsolete" when 1035 specified them). There are other types that are also unused, but can be treated as opaque; so IETF action isn't necessary for implementers to do that. Having a note in the registry about whether they're still in use might be a kindness for implementers. It doesn't impact interoperability, though. -- Evan Hunt -- e...@isc.org Internet Systems Consortium, Inc. _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
