In the current registry for DNS Resolver Information Keys (RFC 9606),
there is no key to indicate that the resolver validates with
DNSSEC. For me, it is an important criterion to evaluate a resolver.
I am thinking about asking for a registration. Policy for this
registry is "specification required
> On Sep 11, 2024, at 14:36, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> Before I start writing one, I ask your advice. Is it a good idea?
Yes.
> Will managers of resolvers use it?
Sure.
> Or do we assume that any serious resolver validates anyway?
Maybe? But it would certainly be interesting to see mis-ma
In the current registry for Extended DNS Error Codes (RFC 8914), there
are codes that may be interesting to add:
* One to say that the response was deliberately minimal (RFC 8482)
* One to say that the response comes from a local root (RFC 8806)
* One to say that the response has been tailored bec
On Wed, Sep 11, 2024 at 9:22 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer
wrote:
> In the current registry for Extended DNS Error Codes (RFC 8914), there are
> codes that may be interesting to add:
>
> * One to say that the response was deliberately minimal (RFC 8482)
> * One to say that the response comes from a loc
This is an interesting proposal, but it should instead be sent to the ADD WG,
given that RFC 9606 and friends came from there, not DNSOP.
--Paul Hoffman
On Sep 11, 2024, at 05:36, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
>
> In the current registry for DNS Resolver Information Keys (RFC 9606),
> there is no
On Sep 11, 2024, at 06:22, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
>
> In the current registry for Extended DNS Error Codes (RFC 8914), there
> are codes that may be interesting to add:
>
> * One to say that the response was deliberately minimal (RFC 8482)
> * One to say that the response comes from a local
On Wed, Sep 11, 2024 at 03:00:52PM +,
Paul Hoffman wrote
a message of 31 lines which said:
> This is an interesting proposal, but it should instead be sent to
> the ADD WG, given that RFC 9606 and friends came from there, not
> DNSOP.
Done. And I also made an I-D, draft-bortzmeyer-resinfo
Speaking Personally, these all three seem reasonable.
I can easily see a reason for the second error code (local root),
especially as a debugging/test case.
Also personally, I feel like the DNS community needs a quality error code
similar to HTTP 418.
But I will shut up and show myself out.
tim
> On Sep 11, 2024, at 09:22, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
>
> In the current registry for Extended DNS Error Codes (RFC 8914), there
> are codes that may be interesting to add:
>
> * One to say that the response was deliberately minimal (RFC 8482)
Certainly. I used to have code that prepared t
