On 16/05/2019 11:23, Petr Špaček wrote:
Personally I think it is not worth the effort, it will just add one more
RFC to read and does not help the protocol maintenance.
I would say that it is better to have one "cleanup" RFC instead of
one-off doc with one useful paragraph in it. With one bigger document we
could say to newcommers "this is list of things you can ignore when you
encounter them in pile of DNS RFCs".
Must as I like simple short documents, I'm inclined to agree.
I recently had an interesting debate with someone about the correct use
of the flag bits for opcodes other than QUERY.
While some later docs do talk about uses of those bits for e.g. UPDATE,
there's no place I could find that specifically says that header bits
are opcode specific and MUST NOT be copied into the response without
explicit (per-opcode) instruction.
Ray
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
