Re: DNSEXT WG Last Call: EDNS0.5

[Robert Elz <kre@munnari.OZ.AU>]

    Date:        Wed, 13 Dec 2000 09:22:46 -0800
    From:        Harald Alvestrand <Harald@Alvestrand.no>
    Message-ID:  <4.3.2.7.2.20001213091037.0270bf08@127.0.0.1>

I think I agree with Andreas, this draft made me a little queasy...

  | The problem with EDNS was that its mechanism is very coarse grained, so 
  | that we cannot do (for instance) negotiated tests with the next Binary 
  | Label-type extension without going through the heavyweight procedure of 
  | assigning a new EDNS number.

I think that's a feature (of EDNS0).  It makes it very hard to
add new stuff, not something that can be easily done.  What's
more because it adds a difficult mechanism to add new features,
it actually makes it more difficult than before EDNS0 when there was
no mechanism at all (so something relatively simple could be invented
- like "no-one currently sets this bit" - and maybe it would work).

kre


to unsubscribe send a message to namedroppers-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.