Hi Bill, Not sure what you mean. Wasn't the point of Mark's email roughly the opposite of what you said?
Compliance with EDNS(0) presumably means compliance with RFC 6891. That specification includes handling of unknown EDNS options. Joe Aue Te Ariki! He toki ki roto taku mahuna! > On Aug 8, 2015, at 17:19, manning <bmann...@karoshi.com> wrote: > > Of course this means that EDNS, for all its promise as an extension to allow > for more flags/signaling is effectively dead, since anything other than > EDNS(0) > will now be blocked. Not sure I agree that EDNS compliance is identical to > EDNS(0) compliance. > > manning > bmann...@karoshi.com > PO Box 6151 > Playa del Rey, CA 90296 > 310.322.8102 > > > > > > >> On 8August2015Saturday, at 13:46, Paul Wouters <p...@nohats.ca> wrote: >> >>> On Sun, 9 Aug 2015, Mark Andrews wrote: >>> >>> As of the 8th of August there was a big reduction in the >>> number of TLD zones which filtered queries with unknown >>> EDNS version or unknown EDNS flags. >>> >>> While there is still work to do to improve EDNS compliance >>> this is a big step forward. Thank you. >> >> And thanks to you Mark for your efforts in making that happen! >> >> Paul >> >> _______________________________________________ >> DNSOP mailing list >> DNSOP@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop > > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list > DNSOP@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
