Pieter Lexis <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, 2026-07-28 at 11:59 +0100, Roy Arends wrote:
>> [...]
> Moving the requirement to specify NS and DelExt Record interaction to
> the specifications of those records makes a lot of sense to me.
> Leaving the usage of NS vs. DelExt Records decision to the resolver and
> allowing the auths to serve DelExt Records alongside NS records in
> delegations makes introducing new DelExt Records easier. As namservers
> supporting DelExt, but not those new records, can just serve them
> without extra processing.
Agreed.
I just wish we'd done this for (before) DS :-)
(I don't really understand the pushback. I guess I shall re-read archives)
--
Michael Richardson <[email protected]>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =- *I*LIKE*TRAINS*
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
