Re: [DNSOP] Brief addition to terminology-bis draft

"John Levine" <> Mon, 10 September 2018 21:39 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3AB3130EF7 for <>; Mon, 10 Sep 2018 14:39:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.651
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.651 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bgclj7ZQS9sI for <>; Mon, 10 Sep 2018 14:39:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1B1E9130DE1 for <>; Mon, 10 Sep 2018 14:39:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 88662 invoked from network); 10 Sep 2018 21:39:03 -0000
Received: from ary.qy ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTP via TCP6; 10 Sep 2018 21:39:03 -0000
Received: by ary.qy (Postfix, from userid 501) id 8FA5B20042D108; Mon, 10 Sep 2018 17:39:02 -0400 (EDT)
Date: 10 Sep 2018 17:39:02 -0400
Message-Id: <20180910213903.8FA5B20042D108@ary.qy>
From: "John Levine" <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Organization: Taughannock Networks
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Brief addition to terminology-bis draft
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2018 21:39:09 -0000

In article <> you write:
>On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 09:48:05AM -0700, Paul Vixie wrote:
>> Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>> > I agree with Paul Vixie that classes were never defined well enough to
>> > be made to work properly, at least at Internet scale.

Agreed.  Since it's a different name space, there wouldn't be any
point since you can get the same effect without any software changes
by starting from a different root.

>This is not in any way an *urgent* consideration, but I do sometimes
>wonder what we (or, y'know, our grandchildren) are going to do if we
>ever run short of type codes.

Since the type code is a 16-bit field, if we allocate a new type every
week, it'll take over a thousand years to run out.  I think this is one we
can safely ignore.