Hi there all, As part of the Great Errata Cleanup of 2024, I'm going through reported Errata and trying to close them. I'm just dealing with the ones that I can do myself, but there are some which I need WG input on.
I'd like to get feedback by Monday Jan 29th, otherwise I'll just go with my proposed resolutions below. Errata: https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7689 I don't really think that the original RFC is *wrong*, but it could be clearer. It uses 'dig' as the testing mechanism, and says: Check that DO=1 queries work (EDNS supported):¶ <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8906#section-8.2.8-3> dig +nocookie +edns=0 +noad +norec +dnssec soa $zone @$server expect: status: NOERROR expect: the SOA record to be present in the answer section expect: an OPT record to be present in the additional section expect: DO=1 to be present if an RRSIG is in the response expect: EDNS Version 0 in response expect: flag: aa to be present The actual output from dig goeth thus: dig +nocookie +edns=0 +noad +norec +dnssec soa ietf.org @ jill.ns.cloudflare.com. ;; Got answer: ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 20613 ;; flags: qr aa; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 2, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 1 ;; OPT PSEUDOSECTION: ; EDNS: version: 0, flags: do; udp: 1232 Seeing as the document says you should "expect: flag: aa to be present", it does seem like it would be better if it also said: "expect: flag: do to be present if an RRSIG is in the response", as that is more inline with what someone writing a test would see. This seems like a fairly simple clarification / place where things could have been worded better, but I don't think that it rises to the level of a "Verified" errata, but it's also not wrong, so my proposed resolution is: Accept the errata as Editorial, Hold for Document Update. ("Hold for Document Update - The erratum is not a necessary update to the RFC. However, any future update of the document might consider it and determine whether it merits including in an update." — from: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/processing-errata-ietf-stream/ ) Can anyone not live with this? Please speak up by Jan 29th, otherwise I'll do what's above. W
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
