Warren Kumari <war...@kumari.net> wrote: > > Yup - it could be used to instruct a (non-validating) resolver to > please go off and start fetching this list of other records... but, > seeing as everyone already validates (right?!) we don't suggest this.
:-D > > However I don't know how an authority would decide whether > > to fill in the additional data or the EXTRA RRs... > > Hmm. It seems that we have done a poor job of wording this bit. We > meant to say that this information is always placed in the additional > section (assuming that support is signalled). The only exception to > this is if someone queries for the EXTRA record explicitly. > > But, Wes, Yan and I (and anyone else interested. Tony?) will discuss > the best way to encode this in the zone file in Berlin, and also > better explain the "always stuff this in additional (because, well, it > is additional), but people can ask if they really want to..." bit Sorry, I was being too terse. I was thinking that in some cases (lack of DNSSEC) the resolver might want to receive the EXTRA RRset itself rather than the other records that it lists, so the resolver can go and fetch the other records. But on second thoughts this is silly, because the resolver can use the other records as a fetch hint just as well as it could use an EXTRA RRset as a fetch hint. (I'm afraid I won't be in Berlin.) Tony. -- f.anthony.n.finch <d...@dotat.at> http://dotat.at/ - I xn--zr8h punycode Fair Isle: Northwest 5 or 6, decreasing 4 at times. Moderate. Rain or showers, fog patches in north. Moderate or good, occasionally very poor in north. _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
