Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-compact-denial-of-existence-03.txt

[Shumon Huque <[e-mail]>]

On Sat, Mar 16, 2024 at 4:11 PM Stephane Bortzmeyer <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> On Sat, Mar 16, 2024 at 01:27:00PM -0700,
>  Shumon Huque <[e-mail]> wrote
>  a message of 236 lines which said:
>
> > > * is there an EDE which is recommended when replying to an
> > > explicit request for a meta-type (like QTYPE=NXNAME)?
> >
> > It doesn't, but could. I don't see an obviously applicable EDE code that
> > covers this (apart from the catch-all "Other Error"), so perhaps we could
> > define a new one, "Invalid Query Type"?
>
> Currently, I use 18, Prohibited, which is not perfect.
>

I created this issue:

    https://github.com/shuque/id-dnssec-compact-lies/issues/4


>
> > One current implementation does not differentiate DO=0 vs 1 and gives the
> > same NODATA answer for both cases.
>
> Yes. I see no practical problem with that but, from a philosophical
> point of view, it disturbs me. Naive clients may make wrong
> conclusions from the NODATA answer.


I've been told the other way is confusing too - we get a different response
depending on the value of the DO flag. Since it isn't clear to me which way
is the least worse, I'm fine with leaving the text as is.

Shumon.