Dave Lawrence: >> ECS / EDNS client-subnet -- An EDNS option [...] Paul Hoffman: > This seems premature given that the whole area is still under discussion.
I have a mixed reaction to this, because I appreciate the point that there is not yet an official RFC on the matter (though there is an assigned option code). Yet though the RFC is under discussion, it is a protocol in active production use on the public Internet and people who are not DNS people refer to it. Then again, those people are also highly unlikely to ever read this document so I'm not sure that putting it here is particularly helpful. But a boy can dream. Dave Lawrence: >> people [...] very, very commonly think of the EDNS >> client-subnet option as being "EDNS0". Paul Hoffman: > That's a row you have to hoe on your own, I'm afraid. There are > other EDNS options, and the document defining EDNS0 is not all that > easy to understand as "this just gives us some extensions". Well yes, those of us who have to talk about it are already hoeing that row, so "on your own" is actually several people I know who have encountered the issue. I'd think that "the document defining EDNS0 is not all that easy to understand" would actually be an argument in favour of clarifying the situation in this terminology document. Ultimately though I am not really bent out of shape if you decide not to include it. > Would it be valuable to just list all these "basic terms" from 1035 > in one section, and say "read 1035 for the definitions"? Sure, I'd be good with that. _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
