'flag: do’ is just the way ‘dig’ displays ‘DO=1’ in the EDNS flags.
I would leave this as editorial. I would accept this but I doubt there will ever be a reissue. If this editorial change is made there are other instances that would need changes. > On 27 Oct 2023, at 12:11, Rebecca VanRheenen <rvanrhee...@amsl.com> wrote: > > Hi Warren, > > We are unable to verify this erratum that the submitter marked as editorial. > Please note that we have changed the “Type” of the following errata > report to “Technical”. As Stream Approver, please review and set the > Status and Type accordingly (see the definitions at > https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata-definitions/). > > You may review the report at: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7689 > > Please see https://www.rfc-editor.org/how-to-verify/ for further > information on how to verify errata reports. > > Further information on errata can be found at: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata.php. > > Thank you. > > RFC Editor/rv > > > > >> On Oct 26, 2023, at 3:30 PM, RFC Errata System <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org> >> wrote: >> >> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC8906, >> "A Common Operational Problem in DNS Servers: Failure to Communicate". >> >> -------------------------------------- >> You may review the report below and at: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7689 >> >> -------------------------------------- >> Type: Editorial >> Reported by: Josh Soref <jso...@gmail.com> >> >> Section: 8.2.8 >> >> Original Text >> ------------- >> expect: DO=1 to be present if an RRSIG is in the response >> >> >> Corrected Text >> -------------- >> expect: flag: do to be present if ... >> >> Notes >> ----- >> The same section has `expect: flag: aa to be present`, and when running the >> suggested command, no `DO=1` is shown, which makes the advice unhelpful. >> >> Sample command: >> ``` >> $ dig +nocookie +edns=0 +noad +norec +dnssec soa $zone @$server >> >> ; <<>> DiG 9.16.44-Debian <<>> +nocookie +edns +noad +norec +dnssec soa >> powerdns.com @2600:3c03::f03c:91ff:fe55:e54d >> ;; global options: +cmd >> ;; Got answer: >> ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: REFUSED, id: 45268 >> ;; flags: qr; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 1 >> >> ;; OPT PSEUDOSECTION: >> ; EDNS: version: 0, flags: do; udp: 1232 >> ;; QUESTION SECTION: >> ;powerdns.com. IN SOA >> >> ;; Query time: 0 msec >> ;; SERVER: 2600:3c03::f03c:91ff:fe55:e54d#53(2600:3c03::f03c:91ff:fe55:e54d) >> ;; WHEN: Thu Oct 26 22:26:44 UTC 2023 >> ;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 41 >> ``` >> >> Instructions: >> ------------- >> This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". (If it is spam, it >> will be removed shortly by the RFC Production Center.) Please >> use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or >> rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party >> will log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. >> >> -------------------------------------- >> RFC8906 (draft-ietf-dnsop-no-response-issue-23) >> -------------------------------------- >> Title : A Common Operational Problem in DNS Servers: Failure >> to Communicate >> Publication Date : September 2020 >> Author(s) : M. Andrews, R. Bellis >> Category : BEST CURRENT PRACTICE >> Source : Domain Name System Operations >> Area : Operations and Management >> Stream : IETF >> Verifying Party : IESG >> -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
