It appears that Roy Arends <[email protected]> said: >> Cleanest option would be to specify range in DELEG. Assuming we are still >> not allowed to do that, I would just specify protocol in >DELEG protocol and minimize draft-ietf-dnsop-delext to just say something like >'behavior applicable to DELEG RRtype is now extended >to range ...'. > >That was the plan, but was informed that draft-ietf-dnsop-delext needed to be >able to stand on its own in DNSOP and have no >dependencies, so it can be swiftly dealt with.
How about flipping it around saying that records in the range cause special processing in response to queries with the DE bit set, with the details of the processing specified in the document(s) that define each record. While I don't immediately see a DELEGPLUSPLUS that has different or more complicated behavior than DELEG, I don't see any reason to assume that will never happen. Iit'd be unfortunate if we came back next year and said oops it'd be great if we had a DELEGPLUSPLUS that in addition does X, but we can't. R's, John _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
