Eric Orth <erico...@google.com> writes: > I have similar objections to this as the similar language that was in the > draft > before it was changed to the "MUST continue to follow" language referenced > above. > > Anything similar to "MUST NOT alter ... processing" is vague over what > constitutes an alteration to the processing. I think everybody would agree > that you should be able to log EDEs, so it must be unambiguous that doing so > is > allowed. Lots of discretionary room for implementers (especially stub > implementers) to do various things with an EDE while still following the specs > on the important handling of the RCODE as the primary error code. > >
Hi Eric, Thanks for the (again) well thought out comments. Do you have a counter proposal sentence that could be added to the security seciton? -- Wes Hardaker USC/ISI _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
