Ted Lemon writes: > It would be helpful if the authors could explain why the REFUSED > response is being used here.
Not to be glib, but because that's what Wilmer originally specified. That's thus what got implemented by the existing implementations (and there are more than you'd likely imagine, too). > Do people think this is the right thing to do No, I don't. Thus I'm working on addressing that and several other protocol issues in a new draft. > My preference would be to allocate a new EDNS0 response code, point > out that existing implementations do something different, which > behavior is actually a bad idea, and recommend against adding such > behavior to new implementations. This is what I intend to do. _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
