RE: draft-iab-dns-choices-02.txt comments

[Eastlake III Donald-LDE008 <Donald.Eastlake@motorola.com>]

Am I missing something?

RFC 2929, as well as allocating RR Type numbers from 65280 - 65534 (0xFF00 - 0xFFFE) for private use also allocates almost half of all RR Type numbers, those from 32768 - 65280 (0x8000 - 0xFEFF), for use based on "Specification Required". That is, as defined in RFC 2434:

      Specification Required - Values and their meaning must be
           documented in an RFC or other permanent and readily available
           reference, in sufficient detail so that interoperability
           between independent implementations is possible.

Isn't getting an RR Type based on just publicly documneting its use liberal enough?

Donald

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-namedroppers@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-namedroppers@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of John R Levine
Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2005 10:54 AM
To: namedroppers@ops.ietf.org
Subject: Re: draft-iab-dns-choices-02.txt comments

...

We don't need dynamic RR types, there's plenty of them.  We need to 
drastically lower the bar to assigning RR types.  It's a 16 bit field, if 
they handed out a thousand numbers of which only two turned out to be 
useful, it wouldn't be a big deal, it's less than 2% of the address space. 
It might also be good to designate some chunk of the RR space as the 
experimental range where numbers will never be assigned so people can 
safely fool around with private types there.

...

--
to unsubscribe send a message to namedroppers-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>