Hi Warren, On 15 Jan 2024, at 22:49, Warren Kumari <war...@kumari.net> wrote:
> 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. If someone checks for "flag: aa" literally in output they will be disappointed, given the output in your example. Similarly, if someone checks for "flag: do" literally in output they will suffer a different kind of disappointment, since the dig output uses "flags" plural. However, I think it would actually be better to detach the language more clearly from the output of a particular version of a particular tool (not just in this document, but in all documents). It's not like dig is the only game in town, and it's not like the output of dig is invariant between releases. > 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. That seems reasonable to me. Joe _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
