On Wed, 2012-03-14 at 14:47 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Forwarding this along to reach more of the AFS community. I wrote back > and said that I agreed with the closing of the registry and would be very > surprised if anyone objected or anticipated further AFSDB record type > registrations, but that I'd pass along any objections.
The DNS community is generally opposed to RR subtype schemes such as that used by AFSDB, because it is impossible to request only records of a particular subtype and because it is frequently the case, as for AFSDB, that a single requestor is not interested in records of multiple subtypes at the same time. It seems likely that, if a use case were to arise for a new AFSDB subtype, the DNS community (and in particular, the DNSEXT working group) would argue strongly in favor of defining a new RR type rather than a new AFSDB subtype. So, like Russ, I think it's appropriate to close the registry. -- Jeff _______________________________________________ AFS3-standardization mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization
