Mukund Sivaraman wrote: > Hi everyone > > RFC6891 says this: > >> Any OPTION-CODE values not understood by a responder or requestor >> MUST be ignored. Specifications of such options might wish to >> include some kind of signaled acknowledgement. For example, an >> option specification might say that if a responder sees and supports >> option XYZ, it MUST include option XYZ in its response. > > There is no generic way for a client to know that an option was not > handled at the server side.
wait, what? the text you quoted is clear on that topic. > ... > > Is it worth introducing a reply EDNS option whose OPTION-DATA contains a > list of all the 16-bit OPTION-CODEs that were ignored from the query > message, and make it a MUST requirement? no. -- Paul Vixie _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
