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

And part of not making that too difficult is making new types IN specific by default. You need to argue for class agnostic.

You can always replicate a class specific type in a new class. You can’t go from class agnostic to class specific. 

-- 
Mark Andrews

> On 11 Sep 2018, at 02:59, Evan Hunt <each@isc.org> wrote:
> 
>> 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.
>> 
>> this thread has further cemented my prejudice against CLASS. however, it 
>> has also motivated me to define it well enough that we can create a 
>> global "CHAOS" system, with very different zone cuts, which seems like 
>> an idea bad enough to be good.
> 
> 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.
> 
> The obvious thing would be to expand into the CLASS field.  Someone in
> the future might be grateful if we avoid making that too difficult.
> 
> -- 
> Evan Hunt -- each@isc.org
> Internet Systems Consortium, Inc.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> DNSOP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop