[DNSOP] Re: DNSOPDELEXT: Proposed Delegation Type Ranges

Wes Hardaker writes:
> 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?

It's analogous to the generic TYPENNNNN mechanism.  It allows a new
type to roll out in a way that both authorities and resolvers have
a good understanding of where the record is authoritative and how it
should be handled w.r.t. the delegation point.

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