Subject: Re: [dnsext] WGLC: RFC6195bis IANA guidance

From: "Michael Sheldon" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2012 17:10:05 -0700

> From: Nicholas Weaver <[email-masked]>
> Date: Tue, July 03, 2012 8:05 am
>
> So by this logic, why not just advise every future RTYPE requests include, as the first byte,
> a version number field, allowing all future RTYPE requests to enable updates without needing
> to register a new RTYPE?

This is intriguing, though would only be needed by relatively complex
record types...

Still, this would have to be defined as part of the original record
specification, along with the procedures for defining new versions, and
procedures for resolvers, servers and applications when encountering
versions they do not understand/support.

And then again, how many times would this have been useful?

Michael Sheldon
Dev-DNS Services
GoDaddy.com