At Thu, 24 Dec 2015 08:01:14 +0530, Mukund Sivaraman <m...@isc.org> wrote:
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-client-subnet-06 > > says in Section 6. Option Format: > > > o A server receiving an ECS option that uses more ADDRESS octets > > than are needed, or that has non-zero bits set beyond SOURCE > > PREFIX-LENGTH, SHOULD return REFUSED to reject the packet, as a > > signal to the developer of the software making the request to fix > > their implementation. > > FORMERR seems more appropriate than REFUSED for an implementor to notice > format issues, and perhaps this has been raised on this list already. If > you can change this, please change this to FORMERR. My understanding is that it's fodder for the imaginary followup standard document (whether it's FORMERR or something else may still be debatable, but should at least be something other than REFUSED). I believe you can find the discussion that led to this conclusion in the ML archive (I didn't like it either but that seemed to be the "rough consensus"). -- JINMEI, Tatuya _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
