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

Reply via email to