Warren Kumari <war...@kumari.net> wrote: > > 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. One thing I vaguely wondered about is how this interacts with RFC 2181 trustworthiness ranking. If you have a validating resolver then it can accept the additional records OK. That isn't safe if you aren't validating or if the zone is unsigned. But maybe the contents of the EXTRA RRset are safe? The resolver can go and get the real answers asynchronously. (Probably needs a quota to avoid amplification.) However I don't know how an authority would decide whether to fill in the additional data or the EXTRA RRs... > 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). That seems like a useful refinement :-) Tony. -- f.anthony.n.finch <d...@dotat.at> http://dotat.at/ - I xn-- zr8h punycode
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
