On Sun, Oct 19, 2025 at 6:01 AM Jim Reid <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 19 Oct 2025, at 04:39, Viktor Dukhovni <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > My message to the WG is in essence to be sparing in defining RRTYPEs > > with extensible field subtypes. > > I thought this WG decided a long time ago that subtyping was bad. It > didn't get written up as an RFC though. >
The only IETF document I'm aware of that discusses this is RFC 3445, which talks about the harms of subtyping, in the context of re-using the KEY RR for DNSSEC (which later lead to the DNSKEY RR being defined). This is a bit different than the use of an extensible rdata type (service param keys) in HTTPS. Though some of the 3445 arguments may apply to the more general purpose SVCB record. I certainly agree with Viktor that extensible rdata formats pose significant challenges for API design, and that we should be very cautious about defining them. Shumon.
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
