> On 8 Dec 2023, at 21:19, John Scudder via Datatracker <nore...@ietf.org> > wrote: > > John Scudder has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-error-reporting-07: No Objection > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this > introductory paragraph, however.) > > > Please refer to > https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ > for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-error-reporting/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Thanks for this useful and readable specification. I have one comment – > > Section 6.1 says, “The EDNS0 Report-Channel option MUST NOT be included in > queries.” Section 6.2 says, “There is no requirement that the EDNS0 > Report-Channel option is present in queries.” While the two are not > technically > in conflict, the second understates; it seems like you could, and should, > remove it. But perhaps there’s some subtlety I’m not understanding here.
Hi John, there is a subtlety: 6.1 is a recipe for the resolver. It should not include EDNS0 Report Channel options in queries. It has no place here. 6.2 is a recipe for the authoritative server. The authoritative server includes the EDNS0 Report-Channel option unsolicited in responses. There is no requirement that the EDNS0 Report-Channel option is present in queries. The point I’m trying to make is to please include the option in a response; don’t depend on the client to ask one, because there is no such requirement for the client to do so. Hope this helps. Roy _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
