Re: [dnsext] WGLC ENDS0-bis

Chris Thompson <cet1@cam.ac.uk> Tue, 10 May 2011 17:02 UTC

Return-Path: <cet1@hermes.cam.ac.uk>
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 4F54CE076D for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 May 2011 10:02:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 zpQud+wjhySQ for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 May 2011 10:02:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ppsw-51.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw-51.csi.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.151]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36B00E06DC for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 May 2011 10:02:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Cam-AntiVirus: no malware found
X-Cam-SpamDetails: not scanned
X-Cam-ScannerInfo: http://www.cam.ac.uk/cs/email/scanner/
Received: from hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.8.54]:37234) by ppsw-51.csi.cam.ac.uk (smtp.hermes.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.158]:25) with esmtpa (EXTERNAL:cet1) id 1QJqKX-0007ft-Wd (Exim 4.72) for dnsext@ietf.org (return-path <cet1@hermes.cam.ac.uk>); Tue, 10 May 2011 18:02:41 +0100
Received: from prayer by hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk (hermes.cam.ac.uk) with local (PRAYER:cet1) id 1QJqKX-0004jN-3M (Exim 4.67) for dnsext@ietf.org (return-path <cet1@hermes.cam.ac.uk>); Tue, 10 May 2011 18:02:41 +0100
Received: from [131.111.11.47] by webmail.hermes.cam.ac.uk with HTTP (Prayer-1.3.3); 10 May 2011 18:02:40 +0100
Date: 10 May 2011 18:02:40 +0100
From: Chris Thompson <cet1@cam.ac.uk>
To: dnsext@ietf.org
Message-ID: <Prayer.1.3.3.1105101802400.32615@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <4DC94AE6.5000903@ogud.com>
References: <4DC94AE6.5000903@ogud.com>
X-Mailer: Prayer v1.3.3
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1
Sender: Chris Thompson <cet1@hermes.cam.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: [dnsext] WGLC ENDS0-bis
X-BeenThere: dnsext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: cet1@cam.ac.uk
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: Tue, 10 May 2011 17:02:45 -0000

On May 10 2011, Olafur Gudmundsson wrote:

>This message starts a Working Group Last Call for
>"Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS0)" located at
>http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc2671bis-edns0-05
>As the document is replacing a Standards Track document this document is 
>on Standards Track.

Niggle: in section 6.1

   The OPT RR MAY be placed anywhere within the additional data section.
   Only one OPT RR MAY be included within any DNS message.  If a message
                                                                 ^^^^^^^
   with more than one OPT RR is received, a FORMERR (RCODE=1) MUST be
   returned.

Surely "request" is meant in that last sentence rather than "message"?
A reply containing multiple OPTs is malformed, certainly, but that's not
not to say it should itself recursively generate a reply!

-- 
Chris Thompson               University of Cambridge Computing Service,
Email: cet1@ucs.cam.ac.uk    New Museums Site, Cambridge CB2 3QH,
Phone: +44 1223 334715       United Kingdom.