In message <47e7e680-4554-4978-b3a6-17de2690a...@icann.org>, Edward Lewis write s: > On 8/25/16, 17:56, "DNSOP on behalf of Mark Andrews" <dnsop-boun...@ietf.org > on behalf of ma...@isc.org> wrote: > > > If you don't want to implement a EDNS than don't implement it. If > you don't want to use a EDNS option with some client then just > ignore the option. Similarly for EDNS flags. The client is expecting > that unsupported options and flags will be ignored not used to > decide to drop a query. > > If this is your intended message, stick to that in the draft. I.e., don't go > beyond the message by requiring responses to queries, reinforce how to respo > nd if the server isn't implementing EDNS0. Don't direct operators to perform > maintenance checks, that has little to do with properly implementing the EDN > S mechanism, stick with making sure implementers know what to code up. Maybe > this is "clarifications on EDNS response behavior" and not "no response issu > e".
It's not just EDNS. "dig +ad +noedns" -> no response. If you would answer any query from a address you need to answer ALL query types from a address. Resolvers shouldn't have to play 50 queries to get a answer. The draft doesn't require EDNS. It requires that EDNS be fully implemented if you implement EDNS. Mark -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
