On Tue, 20 Jun 2023 at 12:21, Roy Arends <r...@dnss.ec> wrote: >8 > > On 20 Jun 2023, at 12:14, Willem Toorop <wil...@nlnetlabs.nl> wrote: >8
> > I have one nit. > > > > In the Example in section 4.2., a request still "includes an empty ENDS0 > > report channel". The third paragraph of that same section states something > > similar: "As support for DNS error reporting was indicated by a empty EDNS0 > > report channel option in the request". But Section 6.1. Reporting Resolver > > Specification states: "The EDNS0 report channel option MUST NOT be included > > in queries." > > > > I believe the text in the Example section is a left over from an earlier > > version and should be corrected. > > Ah, yes, I will remove that sentence completely! WGLC is supposed to be a review, nit-picking and clarification process. Deleting that one sentence changes the meaning of the proposal from explicitly querying the authoritative server for the appropriate report channel to a dependence on authoritatives attaching an (unsolicited) EDNS0 report channel option to each and every query. That is a fundamental change to the document, and certainly not a nit-pick. I withdraw my earlier statement that the document is almost ready. Now, clearly it is not. --rwf _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
