On 04/10/2024 05.20, John Levine wrote:
Editorially, I would move the stuff about approaches not taken to an appendix to avoid confusing people. That includes the second and last paragraphs of section 2.
Yes, please.
Hence, in the penultimate paragraph in section 2, the sentence that starts "No special handling" should say that resolvers MUST implement the response code restoration in 4.1 unless the client sends the EDNS0 Compact Answers OK option.
You can't restore the RCODE by default. This topic is repeating. Such answers must not pass DNSSEC validation, as I understand it (for those that don't implement this draft). Backwards compatibility unfortunately complicates all this.
I agree that query minimization can be inefficient with compact answers (if the query goes deeper than the existing names), but software wanting to avoid this case will just have to react to NXNAME in addition to RCODE.
--Vladimir | knot-resolver.cz
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- dnsop@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to dnsop-le...@ietf.org
