On Tue, 20 Jun 2023 at 22:20, Roy Arends <r...@dnss.ec> wrote: >8 > > The change was from -03 to -04 and discussed in the WG IIRC. The specific > sentence your refer to was a lingering oversight in the changes from -03 to > -04. I have consulted many developers on this, and so far I had no push back. > > > explicitly querying the authoritative server for the appropriate > > report channel to a dependence on authoritatives attaching an > > (unsolicited) EDNS0 report channel option to each and every query. > > No. > > An authoritative server includes the option if configured to do so AND if it > has the a non-null domain name configured as the reporting channel. It will > then reply to each query. This is IMHO better than having a resolver include > the option each and every time. Note that resolvers will ignore options that > are unknown to them.
6.2. Authoritative server specification Contains not a shred of normative language saying any of that. The preliminary waffle in the overview could apply to either the solicited or unsolicited regime. > > I withdraw my earlier statement that the document is almost ready. > > Now, clearly it is not. > > I hear you. I do not agree though, and I hope you reconsider Not without further work --rwf _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
