> On 8 Mar 2023, at 11:16, Evan Hunt <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 07, 2023 at 11:15:55AM +0100, Peter Thomassen wrote: >> Oops, touché! I stand corrected. Thanks, Mark. >> >> What I meant is rrtype 0. I used the wrong mnemonic.* > > IMHO, you're almost definitely correct that NULL (type 10) would be safe to > use for this. Type 0, thought, would not - it's used internally by name > servers in ways that could be pretty difficult to untangle.
NULL would also be difficult to use as they can exist in the wild. > I would lean toward using a newly allocated type code, though, because I'm > 100% sure that wouldn't cause any conflict with existing implementations, > and I'm only 99.7% sure that NULL wouldn't. > > -- > Evan Hunt -- [email protected] > Internet Systems Consortium, Inc. -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: [email protected] _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
