[DNSOP] Re: DNSOPDELEXT: Proposed Delegation Type Ranges

Roy Arends <[email protected]> writes:

> I think there may be a misunderstanding about the purpose of these
> ranges.

As I said, I think the purpose has changed from where it started (or my
memory is bad).  It's fine if it's changed of course, but we should then
ask is it needed given the underlying assumptions have changed.

> The question the ranges answer is simple: when constructing a
> referral, should this Delegation Type be included, and should the NS
> RRset also be included?

So if I read that right, then all the code bases need to understand it
order to do the right thing anyway?  In which case what is the benefit
of having a separate range, as opposed to just assigning new RRTYPES
anywhere int the tree?  Unless the goal is to enable a > and < operation
vs a switch statement for when to do something?  Is that the new
purpose?

[or maybe I've lost the thread entirely and should stop talking (writing)]

-- 
Wes Hardaker
Google

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