On 17. 09. 24 15:57, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
On Tue, Sep 17, 2024 at 03:16:43PM +0200,
Petr Špaček <[email protected]> wrote
a message of 30 lines which said:
I think EDE 29 (Synthesized) with text note "RFC 8482" is perfectly
appropriate for the made-up HINFO answer to ANY (or RRSIG or ...) query.
I tend to disagree since RFC 8482 is about removing data that exists,
not the opposite.
I tend to disagree. HINFO is (nowadays) very unlikely to exist in the
first place, so it is _also_ about making stuff up. Especially when
asked for nonexistent.whatever.example ANY the server might conjure new
HINFO answer from nothing.
In my view it's not about removing data, it's about _not even looking at
the data_ in the first place.
But there is another question: should we try to save codepoint space
by using the same EDE for many different uses (and using the extra text
to demultiplex) or should we use the fact that the registration policy
is quite open to register many codes? RFC 8914, section 5.2, does not
offer any guidance.
I agree that code points are cheap, but on the other hand if there is
too many code points to chose from implementations will use different
codes for the same thing and that will make it _harder_ for consumers to
make sense of meaning.
Specifically for RFC 8482, I think special code is warranted only for
section "4.2. Answer with a Synthesized HINFO RRset", and the existing
EDE 29 (Synthesized) fits that very nicely.
All the rest is normal 'ANY means literally "any"' [1] and I think RFC
8482 sections 4.1 and 4.3 do not need special code because it would not
add useful information.
[1] https://www.thefreedictionary.com/any
> 1. One or some; no matter which.
--
Petr Špaček
Internet Systems Consortium
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
