Re: [dnsext] WGLC ENDS0-bis

Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> Mon, 23 May 2011 21:00 UTC

From: Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de>
To: Olafur Gudmundsson <ogud@ogud.com>
References: <4DC94AE6.5000903@ogud.com>
Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 23:00:01 +0200
In-Reply-To: <4DC94AE6.5000903@ogud.com> (Olafur Gudmundsson's message of "Tue, 10 May 2011 10:25:42 -0400")
Message-ID: <878vtxku9a.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Cc: dnsext@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dnsext] WGLC ENDS0-bis
Precedence: list

* Olafur Gudmundsson:

> This document obsoletes RFC2671.  The big changes from RFC2671 are:
>   - explicit usage of RFC2119 terms and labeling EDNS0 support as MUST;
>   - discussion on payload sizes and selection;
>   - closing of the extended label types registry and classifying 	
>        bit-labels as Historic;
>   - cleanup of IANA actions (that did not take place when RFC2671
>       was issued).

I would like to see guidance to implementors how they can actually
detect EDNS0 support or the lack thereof.  Alternatively, a minimum
level of support could be made mandatory, eventually making the
existing detection logic obsolete.

[dnsext] WGLC ENDS0-bis Olafur Gudmundsson
Re: [dnsext] WGLC ENDS0-bis Brian Dickson
Re: [dnsext] WGLC ENDS0-bis Chris Thompson
Re: [dnsext] WGLC ENDS0-bis Tony Finch
Re: [dnsext] WGLC ENDS0-bis Edward Lewis
Re: [dnsext] WGLC ENDS0-bis Joe Abley
Re: [dnsext] WGLC ENDS0-bis Alex Bligh
Re: [dnsext] WGLC ENDS0-bis João Damas
Re: [dnsext] WGLC ENDS0-bis Ray Bellis
Re: [dnsext] WGLC ENDS0-bis Edward Lewis
Re: [dnsext] WGLC ENDS0-bis Florian Weimer
Re: [dnsext] WGLC ENDS0-bis Edward Lewis
Re: [dnsext] WGLC ENDS0-bis Joao Damas
Re: [dnsext] WGLC ENDS0-bis Florian Weimer