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

[Eric Orth <[e-mail]>]

I still have a soft preference (but am definitely not going to call it a
hard blocker) for some way to avoid followup queries when the only thing
causing truncation is EDE.

My concern comes from the EXTRA-TEXT being an open-length field, and I
imagine many operators would want to create long verbose error messages.
Seems that could lead to many cases where EDE causes common excessive
truncation.

Maybe an alternate easy solution would be to add a don't-do-that note to
section 3.4 along the lines of "Long EXTRA-TEXT fields may cause truncation
and bad resolve performance, which is usually undesirable for the
supplemental nature of EDE. Operators setting the field SHOULD avoid
setting unnecessarily long contents, especially when it can be determined
that doing so will cause truncation." With something like that, I think my
concerns are enough resolved that I wouldn't worry about DP unless future
experience shows EDE truncation to be a significant problem.

But otherwise, if people don't like my suggested note, because I only have
a soft preference to do something, I agree that moving TC/DP to a separate
doc is a good idea.  If EDE is otherwise consensus-ready, let's get it
published.

On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 12:04 PM Ray Bellis <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
>
> On 21/11/2019 15:37, Ben Schwartz wrote:
>
> > I would suggest adding a requirement to the EDE draft that EDE be
> > the last option in OPT
>
> And what if some other future option wants to lay claim to that
> requirement?
>

 I agree that this would be a difficult requirement to set.  Only one thing
can be last, and I would argue that EDE is not important enough to claim
that distinction and take away the flexibility from future specs.