Skip to content

Fully specified RR types vs. other RR types#189

Open
pawel-kow wants to merge 5 commits into
ietf/draft-ietf-dconn-domainconnect-XXfrom
pawel-kow/issue177
Open

Fully specified RR types vs. other RR types#189
pawel-kow wants to merge 5 commits into
ietf/draft-ietf-dconn-domainconnect-XXfrom
pawel-kow/issue177

Conversation

@pawel-kow

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Fixes #177

  • Classified template record types as Fully Specified, Computed, or Generic.
  • Added a shared <<iana-registration-procedure,format=title>> section (designated-expert assignment and review process) governing all Domain Connect registries.
  • Coupled the "Domain Connect Fully Specified Record Types" registry to the IANA DNS Resource Record (RR) TYPEs registry as a bidirectional maintenance contract (following the pattern set by RFC 9108 for that registry).

@pawel-kow pawel-kow linked an issue Jun 20, 2026 that may be closed by this pull request
@pawel-kow pawel-kow requested a review from kerolasa June 20, 2026 05:46

@kerolasa kerolasa left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This is a good change set. Nice to see the reserved markup, and generic types. The later probably requires some DNS Provider changes, and that is fine. Hopefully we will remember to give an early Domain Connect vs RFC standard ChangeLog for DNS and Service Providers so that it is easy to figure out what impacts standardisation caused to applications. But that is for later, when it looks like RFC is out by any minute.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Fully specified RR types vs. other RR types

2 participants