On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 5:32 AM, Tony Finch <d...@dotat.at> wrote: > Regarding the format of EXTRA RRs, it's better to use a list of RRs rather > than a list embedded in one RR. And a single label isn't enough, e.g. > TLSA. > > So I suggest the presentation format should be like > > EXTRA type name. > > and the wire format should be a 16 bit type followed by an uncompressed name.
Hmmm... I think that this sounds reasonable, possibly with a minor tweak. Initially the EXTRA RR was never intended to be something that could be queried - the EXTRA (nee ADDitional) record only existed to allow copying from the master to the slave (they were instructions to the nameservers, not actual RR). Now that we allow querying directly, the RR type needs more discussion. Wes and I will chat more in Berlin, but I'd like to be able to have a way to insert a preference into the RR as well (if there are N extra records, but only space for M, I'd like to be able to indicate which are the M to include). How would: EXTRA pref type name work for you? (pref would likely be an octet). W > > Tony. > -- > f.anthony.n.finch <d...@dotat.at> http://dotat.at/ - I xn--zr8h punycode > South Utsire: Variable 3 or 4, becoming southwesterly 4 or 5. Slight or > moderate. Rain at first. Good, occasionally moderate at first. -- I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad idea in the first place. This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair of pants. ---maf _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
