[DNSOP] new EDE draft with a few changes

[Wes Hardaker <[e-mail]>]

Folks,

Per the discussions in the past about both the TC bit and
resolver/forwarding, I've updated the draft with the following text for
these two issues.  Below is a new section that describes these issues.
I *believe* that this might be a good enough middle ground to get us
past rough consensus, though I know opinions varied widely on what
people's definitions of "perfect" is.  [the registry ranges are also
updated, but I'm fairly confident we're already at rough consensus for
that.]

Any objections to this path forward?

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-extended-error/

diff: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-ietf-dnsop-extended-error-12&url2=draft-ietf-dnsop-extended-error-13

---


3.  Extended DNS Error Processing

   When the response grows beyond the requestor's UDP payload size
   [RFC6891], servers SHOULD truncate messages by dropping EDE options
   before dropping other data from packets.  Implementations SHOULD set
   the truncation bit when dropping EDE options.

   When a resolver or forwarder receives an EDE option, whether or not
   (and how) to pass along EDE information on to their original client
   is implementation dependent.  Implementations MAY choose to not
   forward information, or they MAY choose to create a new EDE option(s)
   that conveys the information encoded in the received EDE.  When doing
   so, care should be taken to ensure any information is properly
   attributed since an EDNS0 option received by the original client will
   be perceived only to have come from the resolver or forwarder sending
   it.

-- 
Wes Hardaker
USC/ISI