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

[Wilmer van der Gaast <[e-mail]>]

On 31 August 2011 12:47, Andrew Sullivan <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> How would you feel about proposing more relaxed registry criteria to
>> IANA (by way of an RFC), similar to how the ports registry works?
> In my personal, no-hat opinion, the registry rule could be made
> first-come, first-served until (say) 50% of the code space was used
> up.  I see no reason not to do this.
>
+1

> The current edns0-bis draft actually moves things in the opposite
> direction: whereas now the rule is RFC Required, the current draft
> makes things Standards Action.  In my opinion (again no hat), this is
> the wrong direction to be moving.
>
Which draft are you reading here exactly? It's entirely possible that
I'm misreading, but
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc2671bis-edns0-05#section-9
seems to say Standards Action is required for:

* new RCODEs
* new EDNS0 flags
* new EDNSx versions

For a new option code, only expert review will be required: "Expert
Review is required for allocation of an EDNS Option Code."

I'm also definitely in favour of the private-range idea. If for
example 0xff00-0xff7f could be reserved for experiments, I'll happily
get everyone on the edns-client-subnet experiment to switch. I'm even
willing to leave out backward compatibility on our end to encourage
switching ASAP. :-)


Cheers,

-- 
Wilmer van der Gaast, Traffic SRE/Google Public DNS team.
Google Ireland.