Re: DNSEXT WG Last Call: EDNS0.5

[Harald Alvestrand <Harald@Alvestrand.no>]

At 22:02 29/11/2000 -0500, Kevin Darcy wrote:
>I would prefer to see a more general mechanism in which both FEATURE codes and
>OPTION codes, for boolean OPTIONs, are included in the same sorted list: it
>seems a waste to have to specify such OPTIONs separately from FEATUREs when
>they are so similar in form and function.

do we have examples of boolean OPTIONs?

I would hesitate to jam them into the same mechanism if there is a chance 
that we might want to turn them off/on per query - the FEATURE mechanism 
was quite deliberately designed so that it was "relatively harmless" to 
signal a FEATURE you did not have any use for. This is a requirement in 
order to be able to subsume FEATURE lists into VERSIONs.


--
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, alvestrand@cisco.com
+47 41 44 29 94
Personal email: Harald@Alvestrand.no



to unsubscribe send a message to namedroppers-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.