IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dnsext] afasterinternet.com trial and draft-vandergaast-edns-client-subnet-00

Colm MacCárthaigh <colm@allcosts.net> Wed, 31 August 2011 03:22 UTC

Return-Path: <colm@allcosts.net>
X-Original-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 478BB21F8C81 for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Aug 2011 20:22:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.677
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.677 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wx0lb+gPKZr5 for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Aug 2011 20:22:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qy0-f172.google.com (mail-qy0-f172.google.com [209.85.216.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86E1821F8D3F for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Aug 2011 20:22:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qyk34 with SMTP id 34so2727604qyk.10 for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Aug 2011 20:23:52 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.224.186.132 with SMTP id cs4mr1872308qab.110.1314761032237; Tue, 30 Aug 2011 20:23:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.224.47.66 with HTTP; Tue, 30 Aug 2011 20:23:51 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20110831031256.GA98758@shinkuro.com>
References: <20110830162134.GB84494@shinkuro.com> <CAMbvoa+nh5k8eOA-XRwBD5oxm17+=Q4gCagq0OBS5OEQX=g1sw@mail.gmail.com> <20110831031256.GA98758@shinkuro.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 20:23:51 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAF6GDfA3+A+fJz2TY+Jg5WcVWkpAdR8n-4tXMC+zQYe9aGYpw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Colm MacCárthaigh <colm@allcosts.net>
To: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>, dnsext@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [dnsext] afasterinternet.com trial and draft-vandergaast-edns-client-subnet-00
X-BeenThere: dnsext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: DNS Extensions working group discussion list <dnsext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsext>, <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsext>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext>, <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 03:22:30 -0000

On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 8:12 PM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
> I actually don't care about the IETF process.  What I do care about is
> the potential for interoperability headaches later because of
> undocumented collisions in EDNS0 option code interpretation.  Avoiding
> that sort of headache is the exact reason we have a registry.

How would you feel about proposing more relaxed registry criteria to
IANA (by way of an RFC), similar to how the ports registry works?

EDNS0 option codes don't appear to be in much demand, so exhaustion
isn't as much of a concern.

-- 
Colm

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email