On Fri, Nov 7, 2025 at 12:12 PM Ray Bellis <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 20/10/2025 15:36, Roy Arends wrote: > > > > First presented at the DD WG, I've now re-submitted the latest > > version of Delegation Extensions (including minor updates) to the > > datatracker with a new title to reflect "DNSOP". In short: draft- > > arends-dnsop-delext-00.txt replaces draft-ppr-dd-auth-delegation- > > types > > > > I support the concept of a range of RR values reserved for the > parent-side of the zone cut, such that DNS implementations can process > future ones automatically instead of having to have special-case code > for each one. > I support this too. I note also Shumon's draft wanting to carve out a sub-range of the > private RR values for private / testing meta-RRs. > For those who haven't seen it, that draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-huque-dnsop-private-metatypes-01 On whether these two features merit documents of their own I have no > particular opinion, but either way the IANA registry for which the > reserved ranges are enumerated in RFC6895 will need updating, ideally > (IMHO) in an RFC6895(bis). > One of the 'Open Questions' in our draft asked exactly that question. Ideally, RFC6895 would be the best place to make any updates to the RR type space classification. But I'll note that both these drafts go a bit beyond IANA considerations, e.g. Roy's draft talks about interaction with the proposed DE EDNS header flag. And mine talks about the correct response behavior for unknown Q and Meta-Types (I was contemplating renaming our doc to 'On Q and Meta-Types in the DNS" to acknowledge the expanded scope. Shumon.
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
