Might not hurt to also just mention this in the doc as a reminder for the reader...
> Am 31.07.2018 um 22:25 schrieb Benjamin Kaduk <ka...@mit.edu>: > > On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 04:14:41PM -0400, Tom Pusateri wrote: >> >> >>> On Jul 31, 2018, at 3:53 PM, Tom Pusateri <pusat...@bangj.com> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> If the RCODE is set to any value other than NOERROR (0) or DSOTYPENI >>>> ([TBA2] tentatively 11), then the client MUST assume that the server >>>> does not implement DSO at all. In this case the client is permitted >>>> to continue sending DNS messages on that connection, but the client >>>> SHOULD NOT issue further DSO messages on that connection. >>>> >>>> I'm confused how the server would still have proper framing for subsequent >>>> DNS messages, since the DSO TLVs would be "spurious extra data" after a >>>> request header and potentially subject to misinterpretation as the start of >>>> another DNS message header. >>> >>> Yes, this is a serious oversight. I think we are going to need to encode >>> differently to make all the TLVs look like an RR externally so the RDLEN >>> can be used to skip them and add a single count or switch the TLV syntax >>> back to RR syntax. The existing DNS header format / RR format is less than >>> ideal... >>> >> >> My co-authors reminded me about the TCP framing for DNS which gives the >> length of the DNS message so it can easily be skipped so this isn’t a >> problem. > > Ah, that would do the trick. It looks like I only chased up through the > header format in 1035 and didn't scroll down to the "TCP usage" section. > Sorry for the noise. > > -Benjamin > _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
