<<It seems that this perspective is generally shared, as nobody seems to have a
fundamental problem with changing the semantics of NODATA and essentially
abandoning NXDOMAIN (for "do" queries).>>
Raises hand.
I object to any weakening of the nxdomain signal, which must continue to be
district from nodata.
p vixie
On Mar 7, 2023 02:16, Peter Thomassen <pe...@desec.io> wrote:
On 3/7/23 01:26, Mark Andrews wrote:
>> 2.) As for the "NXNAME" rrtype, I'd like to propose using rrtype 0 (the NULL
>> type). So far it only has meaning for "type covered" fields in signature
>> records such as SIG(0) (RFC 2931). There appears to be no collision with
>> usage in the NSEC type bitmap, and IMHO it appears to be a very natural meta
>> type fit. ("This is NULL, There Really Is Nothing Underneath.")
>
> NULL is type 10. This was assigned in RFC 1035.
Oops, touché! I stand corrected. Thanks, Mark.
What I meant is rrtype 0. I used the wrong mnemonic.*
Based on that, I looked up the wrong things. NULL stuff that I subsequently
quoted doesn't apply, obviously (apologies).
As John pointed out, RFC 6895 has some words about the zero type, including
that IANA must not assign it for use as a regular rrtype (perfect) and allowing
its use as a special indicator also in "other" circumstances (perfect).
Still sounds like a very good fit to me.
The response to the zero type proposal so far was dominated by meta discussions
about what's "meta", what's "ordinary" and so on. I think we should keep in
mind that a new mechanism is being invented, and there's really nothing wrong
with thinking out of the box and changing the ordinary as long as it doesn't
cause problems.
It seems that this perspective is generally shared, as nobody seems to have a
fundamental problem with changing the semantics of NODATA and essentially
abandoning NXDOMAIN (for "do" queries). Looking at this change, I don't
understand the non-technical resistance against considering the zero type in
this context. That seems a much less severe change to me.
I have to say that I'm a bit surprised at the absence of *technical* discussion
around this. It's entirely possible that the proposal is technically not solid
and does cause problems; I'd have loved to hear some arguments in that
direction.
Thanks,
Peter
* Possibly because my native language is German, where "null" means zero.
_______________________________________________
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
