Hi all, especially Paul,
while implementing RFC 8427 in Knot DNS, we found that this RFC does not
say anything about EDNS option. This results in general rules for RR
being applied, resulting in very ugly:
"additionalRRs": [
{
"NAME": ".",
"TYPE": 41,
"TYPEname": "OPT",
"CLASS": 1232,
"TTL": 32768,
"rdataOPT": "\\# 24
00030014646E732D7669782D646E7330312E6E69632E637A",
"RDLENGTH": 24,
"RDATAHEX": "00030014646e732d7669782d646e7330312e6e69632e637a"
}
It seems interesting to me, that this RFC is single-authored,
Informational and non-WG.
Do you think we should improve this, making the JSON representation of
OPT anyhow more useful?
If so, how do you think we should proceed? Writing a new RFC draft
updating this?
Thank you for considerations,
Libor
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
