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

[Bob Harold <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 4:19 AM Petr Špaček <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On 21. 11. 19 9:49, Wes Hardaker wrote:
> > Wes Hardaker <[e-mail]> writes:
> >
> >>> I think our simplest and most appealing option would be to treat EDE
> >>> exactly like any existing EDNS Option (i.e. set the TC bit).
> >>
> >> For the record, I'm just fine with this.  People that *want* a separate
> >> signal should speak up please and voice their reasons why having just
> >> the TC bit is unacceptable too.
> >>
> >> We need to come to a decision about this, and that will require everyone
> >> with an opinion to chime in.
> >
> > Actually, I forgot that one of the primary reasons for separating it was
> > that EDE can go forward and the need for TC/DP bits can be debated
> > longer if need be.
> >
> > So...  anyone that thinks something like the DP bit is needed *and*
> > should be tied to EDE should speak up.  Please.
>
> I will provide the opposite opinion:
> DP bit is not *needed* for EDE.
>
> If I'm proven wrong in future we can specify DP bit in a separate document
> and update EDE RFC.
>
> (Also I've changed my mind when it comes to TC bit - now I believe that
> normal DNS processing is fine and EDE does not need a special case.)
>
> --
> Petr Špaček  @  CZ.NIC
>

Thanks for the discussion and the idea of a separate bit.

My opinion:

Keep TC bit in EDE and move it forward.

I would prefer not to create a DP flag bit yet, until actual measurements
tell us that it makes a measurable difference - let's wait until EDE is
deployed and someone can measure the occurrence of truncating just EDE.
Then we can discuss if the percentage is worth the complexity.

-- 
Bob Harold