Hi both, Thanks for this feedback, I will incorporate it.
G. > On 15 Jan 2026, at 6:43 pm, Andy Newton <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 1/15/26 2:14 AM, Pawel Kowalik wrote: >> Hi Andy >> >> On 14.01.26 19:33, Andy Newton wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 14-01-2026 12:04 PM, Pawel Kowalik wrote: >>>> The clients MUST however accept responses containing other DNS record >>>> types. >>> >>> IMO, that just means clients need to be aware of all RR types. There >>> are, by my count, 47 different RR types. Requiring clients to support >>> all 47 when they are only likely to encounter 3 seems a bit much. >>> Would you be satisfied if this were a SHOULD? >> >> The intention was to use "accept" instead of "process" or alike to >> indicate that the client shall at least be able to ignore and not break >> in the presence of such values. >> It seems that I failed to find right formulation, so how about more >> explicit version: "The clients MUST however accept responses containing >> other DNS record types at minimum by ignoring their presence and not >> breaking processing". > > That works. Thanks, Pawel. > > -andy -- Gavin Brown Principal Engineer, Global Domains & Strategy Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) https://www.icann.org _______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
