Re: [dnsext] WGLC ENDS0-bis

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

Return-Path: <fw@deneb.enyo.de>
X-Original-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02DD5E07F3 for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 May 2011 14:00:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.249
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1DlRteJk5fSa for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 May 2011 14:00:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ka.mail.enyo.de (ka.mail.enyo.de [87.106.162.201]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4D3FE07EE for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 May 2011 14:00:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.17.135.4] (helo=deneb.enyo.de) by ka.mail.enyo.de with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) id 1QOcEM-0005Ob-2A; Mon, 23 May 2011 23:00:02 +0200
Received: from fw by deneb.enyo.de with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <fw@deneb.enyo.de>) id 1QOcEL-0003uw-R4; Mon, 23 May 2011 23:00:01 +0200
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
X-BeenThere: dnsext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: DNS Extensions working group discussion list <dnsext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsext>, <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsext>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext>, <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 21:00:08 -0000

* 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.