Re: Issue: Add a new QTYPE

[Paul Vixie <paul@vix.com>]

> We actually discussed and rejected the additional processing suggestion
> -- it was present in the original draft of 1886. The argument was pretty
> much the one Robert just gave: we will have to remove the processing
> requirement eventually. It was also not clear that it would be useful in
> most cases.

i believed i had shown during the debate over 1886, and i believe i have
shown again here today, that the lifetime of the data will be the same
as the lifetime of its usefulness.  this really is not a bad idea, folks.

> OTOH, I don't believe that the protocol police will jail you if you
> actually return the A records in the additional section of an AAAA
> query, especially if the AAAA record set is empty.

isc has sometimes been accused of "legislating from the bench" by using
the power of the bind installed base to get things into the protocols
that ietf did not otherwise think was a good idea.  we won't be doing
that here.  unless there's consensus that adding A RR's as additional
data for AAAA responses (empty or not) is non-harmful, it won't happen,
or at least, it won't happen in bind.

--
to unsubscribe send a message to namedroppers-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>