[DNSOP] Re: DNSOPDELEXT: Proposed Delegation Type Ranges

Petr Špaček <[email protected]> writes:

> I like examples, so I will provide TL;DR examples:

Thanks; they're helpful reading.

I have to say, my reaction to the fact we've come up with 4 categories
(ok, 3 really) for future expansions that *may* be needed leads me to
think we probably haven't actually identified all the crazy things we
will do in the future, and the likelihood of this actually assuredly
solving the more permanent problem of "will the authoritative server
need to change its logic because of this new data type" leads me think
only "maybe".

Now, if we can successfully predict even some ranges of code, then this
is likely a useful thing to do.

But I thought the original intent, when this discussion stared a while
ago, was really: when should an engine know that a new RRTYPE is
critical and you should abandon hope in some way because you don't
understand it.  Or maybe I misunderstood the original goal (very
entirely possible), but if not: then how does a new set of ranges change
this semantic?  Are we confident that now there are 3 slices of
different code that these new types can be treated generically in some
way?  I have doubts...  And shouldn't there be another range for
"abandon all hope because it turns out there is a category we failed to
predict back then and need to assign it now"?

Reader be warned: It may be that at 5:30 in the morning I shouldn't be
thinking about hard problems.
-- 
Wes Hardaker
Google

_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]