> 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
