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

[Petr Špaček <[e-mail]>]

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