And yes, if you support version n you also support all versions up to n.
--
Mark Andrews
> On 3 Nov 2024, at 09:38, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> BADVERS is sent if the server doesn’t support the version in the request.
> As version 1 has not yet been defined every implementation should return
BADVERS is sent if the server doesn’t support the version in the request. As
version 1 has not yet been defined every implementation should return BADVERS
to a request with [1..255] in request and the response version version should
be 0.
We should have bumped the version when we tightened t
> On Nov 2, 2024, at 8:35 PM, Paul Vixie
> wrote:
>
> The version number in the initiation is the one that the initiator is
> expecting in the response. Probably should have made that an array.
>
>
> On Nov 2, 2024 19:54, Dave Lawrence wrote:
> I agree with your reading. 6.1.3 seems quite
The version number in the initiation is the one that the initiator is expecting
in the response. Probably should have made that an array.
p vixie
On Nov 2, 2024 19:54, Dave Lawrence wrote:
Stephane Bortzmeyer writes:
> So, when a responder knows both version 0 and some higher version (say
Stephane Bortzmeyer writes:
> So, when a responder knows both version 0 and some higher version (say,
> version 1), can it reply to a EDNS=0 query with a EDNS=1 response? Can
> we use that for greasing?
I agree with your reading. 6.1.3 seems quite clear that request = 0
and response = 0-255 is le
On Sat, Oct 26, 2024 at 10:10:43PM +0200,
Benno Overeinder wrote
a message of 25 lines which said:
> This initiates the Working Group Last Call (WGLC) for
> draft-ietf-dnsop-structured-dns-error, "Structured Error Data for Filtered
> DNS."
The draft is very useful (users need to be informed)
Dear DNSOP,
We are researchers from the University of Virginia currently studying
Encrypted Client Hello (ECH) and DNS HTTPS/SVCB. We have a few questions
related to the ECH Split Mode DNS configuration and would greatly
appreciate any insights you could provide.
In the RFC draft-ietf-tls-esni-22
[This is in the context of draft-ietf-dnsop-grease.]
Last paragraph of Section 6.1.3 of RFC 6891 says that a responder
can respond with a higher EDNS version than what was requested by the
requestor. (And it explains why, and the limits.)
I tried that for DNS greasing and, while typical resolvers
