On Sunday, November 3, 2024 2:30:16 PM UTC Shumon Huque wrote:
> ...
>
> I find it fascinating that working on greasing is helping to sharpen our
> collective understanding of EDNS version negotiation rules, and where we
> might want to improve, change, or clarify things (I'm sure other
> protocol
On Sun, Nov 3, 2024 at 10:46 AM Paul Vixie wrote:
> On Sunday, November 3, 2024 10:09:22 AM UTC Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Nov 02, 2024 at 08:35:47PM +,
>
> > Paul Vixie wrote
>
> >
>
> > a message of 59 lines which said:
>
> > > The version number in the initiation is the on
On Sunday, November 3, 2024 10:09:22 AM UTC Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 02, 2024 at 08:35:47PM +,
> Paul Vixie wrote
>
> a message of 59 lines which said:
> > The version number in the initiation is the one that the initiator
> > is expecting in the response.
>
> Do you mean t
On Sun, Nov 03, 2024 at 11:21:01AM +1100,
Mark Andrews wrote
a message of 61 lines which said:
> And yes, if you support version n you also support all versions up to n.
Is it written in the RFC? I don't think so. In a faraway future, if we
have EDNS, say version 3, we may have servers suppo
On Sat, Nov 02, 2024 at 08:35:47PM +,
Paul Vixie wrote
a message of 59 lines which said:
> The version number in the initiation is the one that the initiator
> is expecting in the response.
Do you mean that:
Requestor -> EDNS = 0
Responder -> EDNS = 1
is forbidden? RFC 6891 does not say
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
10 matches
Mail list logo
