Re: [DNSOP] draft-ietf-dnsop-no-response-issue-03

[Mark Andrews <[e-mail]>]

In message <[e-mail]>, Edward Lewis write
s:
> On 8/25/16, 17:56, "DNSOP on behalf of Mark Andrews" <[e-mail] 
> on behalf of [e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>     >    If you don't want to implement a EDNS than don't implement it.  If
>     you don't want to use a EDNS option with some client then just
>     ignore the option.  Similarly for EDNS flags.  The client is expecting
>     that unsupported options and flags will be ignored not used to
>     decide to drop a query.
> 
> If this is your intended message, stick to that in the draft.  I.e., don't go
>  beyond the message by requiring responses to queries, reinforce how to respo
> nd if the server isn't implementing EDNS0.  Don't direct operators to perform
>  maintenance checks, that has little to do with properly implementing the EDN
> S mechanism, stick with making sure implementers know what to code up.  Maybe
>  this is "clarifications on EDNS response behavior" and not "no response issu
> e".

It's not just EDNS.  "dig +ad +noedns" -> no response.

If you would answer any query from a address you need to answer ALL
query types from a address.  Resolvers shouldn't have to play 50
queries to get a answer.

The draft doesn't require EDNS.  It requires that EDNS be fully
implemented if you implement EDNS.

Mark
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: [phone]                 INTERNET: [e-mail]