IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] Consensus suggestion for EDE and the TC bit

Wes Hardaker <wjhns1@hardakers.net> Wed, 15 January 2020 17:04 UTC

Return-Path: <wjhns1@hardakers.net>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9EB051200DF for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Jan 2020 09:04:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id S0mXjP1g7SkX for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Jan 2020 09:04:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.hardakers.net (mail.hardakers.net [168.150.192.181]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ACB13120886 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Jan 2020 09:04:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (unknown [10.0.0.3]) by mail.hardakers.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 4DDFE229C0; Wed, 15 Jan 2020 09:04:27 -0800 (PST)
From: Wes Hardaker <wjhns1@hardakers.net>
To: Michael StJohns <msj@nthpermutation.com>
Cc: Ralf Weber <dns@fl1ger.de>, dnsop@ietf.org
References: <yblzhgpwwit.fsf@wu.hardakers.net> <07cdee93-eb69-9a67-65d8-ea85e82a8761@nthpermutation.com> <A2BE987F-09ED-4992-977C-FB3A702B8FE5@fl1ger.de> <13f28f94-504f-1f7a-a66b-1fdc875d2918@nthpermutation.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2020 09:04:27 -0800
In-Reply-To: <13f28f94-504f-1f7a-a66b-1fdc875d2918@nthpermutation.com> (Michael StJohns's message of "Wed, 4 Dec 2019 01:31:50 -0500")
Message-ID: <ybly2u8ejms.fsf@w7.hardakers.net>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/6JFWBOwzUgMrcDo6BBSwiDyGXH0>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Consensus suggestion for EDE and the TC bit
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dnsop/>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2020 17:04:34 -0000

Michael StJohns <msj@nthpermutation.com> writes:

> In the querying EDNS0 set a bit (EDERequested) that says "Consider EDE
> as 'important' in the response

We've discussed extra bits like this in the past and it was generally
decided to leave it as simple as possible.  I don't see anyone else
agreeing with you (yet), so if others think this suggestion from Mike is
worth holding the draft up further, please speak ASAP.
-- 
Wes Hardaker
USC/ISI

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email