I’ve submitted draft-ietf-dnsop-delext-11. It contains the new ranges discussed below, with the following change: private delegation types act like NS-preserving delegation types.
Please review. Warmly Roy > On 21 Aug 2026, at 13:14, Roy Arends <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi all, > > After the discussions over the past few weeks, the authors of DELEG and > DELEXT have converged on two additional ranges (Ranges 2 and 3) of Delegation > Types, distinguished by how they affect the contents of a referral: > > Range 1: NS-Omitting Delegation Types > Range 2: NS-Preserving Delegation Types > Range 3: On-Demand Delegation Types > Range 4: Private Delegation Types > > Range 1: NS-Omitting Delegation Types > A Delegation Type in this range causes the NS RRset to be omitted from a > referral. When a delegation contains Delegation Types from this range, an > authoritative server MUST NOT include the NS RRset in a referral, even if it > exists at that delegation point. > > Note that the DELEG record will be allocated from this range (Range 1). > > Range 2: NS-Preserving Delegation Types > A Delegation Type in this range does not alter the inclusion of the NS RRset > in a referral. When a delegation contains Delegation Types from this range, > and none from Range 1, an authoritative server MUST include the NS RRset in > the referral, together with the Delegation Type RRsets. If a delegation also > contains Delegation Types from Range 1, the Range 1 rule takes precedence: > the authoritative server MUST NOT include the NS RRset in the referral. > > Note that Delegation Types from Range 1 and Range 2 are included in a > referral when the DE bit is set to 1. > > Range 3: On-Demand Delegation Types > Delegation Types in this range are not included in referrals. An > authoritative server MUST NOT include Delegation Types from this range in a > referral. Delegation Types in this range MUST be explicitly queried. > > Range 4: Private Delegation Types > Private Use in accordance with RFC 8126. Delegation Types from this range > follow the rules for Range 3. > > This seems to capture the distinction we have converged on without assigning > semantics to individual Delegation Types beyond their interaction with > referrals. > > We believe this four-range approach provides a good balance between > usefulness, avoiding redundant information in referrals, and deployability, > while retaining sufficient flexibility to accommodate future Delegation Types > and delegation mechanisms that we cannot anticipate today. > > Subsequently, the DELEXT draft will read: > > Decimal Hex Registration Procedures Note > > 61440- 0xF000- Expert Review or NS-Omitting delegation TYPEs > 61567 0xF07F Standards Action > > 61568- 0xF080- Expert Review or NS-Preserving delegation TYPEs > 61695 0xF0FF Standards Action > > 61696- 0xF100- Expert Review or On-Demand delegation TYPEs > 61935 0xF1EF Standards Action > > 61936- 0xF1F0- Private Use Private delegation TYPEs > 61951 0xF1FF > > Speaking for the authors of both DELEG and DELEXT, we seek input from the WG > on this design. > > Roy _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
