> On 13 Nov 2017, at 9:43 pm, tjw ietf <tjw.i...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> To follow up from the meeting this morning,  it sounded from the room that in 
> the case of these 
> four options, #4 was the one which makes the most sense.   
> 
> 
…..

> 
>   4. 32 bit code field, repeating rcode from elsewhere in the packet
>      Like #2, but copies the rcode directly into the error code header
>      within the extended-error component of the packet.  Redundant but
>      clear that the entire 32 bits are needed.
> 
> Thoughts?


errr - what would it mean if the rcode in the error code header differed
from the rcode value in the extended-error component?

The issue with duplicated information in a packet is that you then have
add even further consideration to cope with the cases where the expected
thing did not happen.

Not exactly blown away by #4 myself.

Geoff



_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

Reply via email to