Hi, As a step towards this, I have posted a -00 and -01 draft at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-eastlake-dnsop-rfc6895bis-iana/ The -00 draft is the result of converting to modern style and source and a few tiny tweaks. -01 is much more substantially updated. But neither has new material not already in an RFC.
RFC 6895 and its predecessors do go a bit beyond IANA Considerations and describe some other aspects of particular code points/ranges. Thanks, Donald =============================== Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA [email protected] On Fri, Nov 14, 2025 at 6:26 AM Petr Špaček <[email protected]> wrote: > On 07. 11. 25 21:07, Shumon Huque wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 7, 2025 at 12:12 PM Ray Bellis <[email protected] > > <mailto:[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 <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. > > I think it would be reasonable to have 'QTYPE handling amendments and > clarifications' document with an IANA Considerations section in it. IMHO > better to keep it under one roof/document. > > -- > Petr Špaček > > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
