Hi, I've read the private-metatypes draft and support the idea.
My only comment is that, to increase backwards compatibility, the range for private use Q and Meta Types should be from the existing range for such RRs. So the private use range could be, say 129-144 which also minimizes numbering discontinuities. (And the existing 65280-65534 private use range should have its description narrowed to specify that it is for data RRs. This could be merged with draft-eastlake-rfc6895bis-iana-01. Thanks, Donald =============================== Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA [email protected] On Fri, Nov 7, 2025 at 3:07 PM Shumon Huque <[email protected]> wrote: > 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] >
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
