On 13/11/2017 19:01, Geoff Huston wrote:
> 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. Would it be feasible to reserve a standard RCODE value in the header that just means "see extended error"? It has always kinda surprised me that the EDNS RCODE didn't work that way, instead of the current situation where if you only read the bottom 4 bits of the extended 12-bit code you could completely misinterpret the status (e.g. treat BADVER[16] as NOERROR[0], since the bottom four bits are all zeros for both). Ray _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
