--On Friday, October 05, 2012 10:29 +0200 João Damas <joao@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >... >> IMO, this discussion has turned up two ways in which the case >> for eliminating the possibility of additional label types >> could be made: >> >> (2.1) Demonstrating that simply having the capability defined >> and available in principle is somehow harmful. > People here can correct me, as my memory is fuzzy, but binary > labels did cause harm to several deployed implementations. > Don't know if this is just case in favour of natural selection. Again, I'm not defending binary labels. Many people thought they were a good idea at the time. But, just as "binary labels failed" is a good argument for deprecating binary labels but not a good argument for deprecating label types generally, "binary labels caused harm" (assuming that is the case) would not be a basis for inferring that all labels types would cause harm, much less that retaining the capability for using extended label types would be harmful. Just as "some cows are brown and all cows are animals" doesn't tell you a thing about the color of all animals, "binary labels were a bad idea and binary labels are an instance of extended label types" doesn't constitute an argument for deprecating label types. >> (2.2) The WG has consensus on a bright line that defines the >> nature of proposals that would require going to DNSng rather >> than EDNSx-type extensions to the current model, has concluded >> that any extensions or alterations to the label definition of >> 1034/1035 would require crossing that line, and is prepared to >> document that line and get IETF consensus on it (either as >> part of this document or one normatively referenced from it). > Pretty much, that is my understanding. It is quite possible > that this has been a position reached over many iterations of > discussions and is not actually documented anywhere. If there is a bright line, it would definitely benefit the broader community to be able to see a description and discuss it. If there is only a general feeling in the WG... well, that doesn't count for much, especially given the history of disagreements about what the base DNS specifications say and what assorted terminology means. john