On Fri, Jul 07, 2017 at 11:37:39AM -0500, Nico Williams wrote: > On Fri, Jul 07, 2017 at 08:09:30AM -0700, Paul Vixie wrote: > > Nico Williams wrote: > > >... > > > > ... > > > > i know which future i'd rather live in. i also feel in-year pressure to get > > my work done. i vacillate as to who gets to receive which burdens. > > I'm with you on this. [...] I should add too that in order to do better at pushing on middleboxes we need to acknowledge the problem. Please don't tell me to stop spreading the myth that it's difficult to deploy new RR types! Work with us to fix the problem, and recognize that it is largely a social one. If we ever want to use CLASSes to expand the RR type namespace, we'll definitely need even more support from clients/servers/providers. So it's worth considering that now rather than later, because we shouldn't want to have to go through this middlebox un-break exercise multiple times. I would even suggest that we immediately add such a new class or three just to be able to test compliance. This wouldn't preclude new classes that aren't IN RR type namespace extension classes. Nico --