> On 20 Jun 2023, at 21:39, Dick Franks <rwfra...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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.
That is correct.
> Deleting that one sentence changes the meaning of the proposal from
No!
The change was from -03 to -04 and discussed in the WG IIRC. The specific
sentence your refer to was a lingering oversight in the changes from -03 to
-04. I have consulted many developers on this, and so far I had no push back.
> 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.
No.
An authoritative server includes the option if configured to do so AND if it
has the a non-null domain name configured as the reporting channel. It will
then reply to each query. This is IMHO better than having a resolver include
the option each and every time. Note that resolvers will ignore options that
are unknown to them.
> That is a fundamental change to the document, and certainly not a nit-pick.
This was an older change, though. It was indeed fundamental, but there was a
thought behind this.
> I withdraw my earlier statement that the document is almost ready.
> Now, clearly it is not.
I hear you. I do not agree though, and I hope you reconsider.
Roy
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
