Thanks Donald, I think merging this into draft-eastlake-rfc6895bis-iana-01 is a fine idea.
I'm also good with 129-144 for private q & meta types. Shumon. On Mon, Nov 24, 2025 at 11:43 PM Donald Eastlake <[email protected]> wrote: > 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]
