On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 10:11:56AM -0700, Paul Vixie wrote: > > > 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.
:-)
Mukund
pgpo_49lQCBTU.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
