Hi Libor, Tom, Thanks for this, I believe this will be a good extension to the EDNS specification to help operators hunt down issues. I support its adoption by the WG. Should the WG disagree, please submit it as an individual submission.
On Wed, 2022-11-23 at 20:25 +0100, libor.peltan wrote: > Hi DNSOP, > we have prepared a specification document (see below), which fills a > gap > that appears to be missing currently — The EDNS(0) textual and JSON > format. > It also fixes a "specification bug" in an existing and related RFC. I wonder if it should update RFC 6891 and all related OPTION RFCs as well. I also wonder if it could make sense to add guidance on how to choose the correct presentation format for newly drafted EDNS options so future option-drafts and documents have presentation formats in there. > We would also welcome any improvement suggestions and useful > corrections. However, fearing discussion loops arguments about > details, > we encourage to moderate discussion of details, such as if some > fields > in a specific option shall be separated by commas or slashes. > This document is full of design decisions that might be differently > appealing to everyone. The format might seem complicated, but the > goal > was best possible human readability. > And the more general (and important) goal is to make the standard > useful, so that it gets adopted by implementations. I had a cursory glance and it looks quite complete. I'll try to get a better reading in soon. Best regards, Pieter _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
