> On 20 Jun 2023, at 23:35, Dick Franks <rwfra...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 20 Jun 2023 at 22:20, Roy Arends <r...@dnss.ec> wrote:
>> 8
>
>>
>> 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.
>
> 6.2. Authoritative server specification
> Contains not a shred of normative language saying any of that.
>
> The preliminary waffle in the overview could apply to either the
> solicited or unsolicited regime.
>
>>> 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
> Not without further work
Please send text.
Roy
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
