From nobody Tue May 23 20:15:10 2023
Return-Path: <dns@fl1ger.de>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92B02C14CE44
 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 May 2023 20:15:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5
 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001,
 RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001,
 SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194])
 by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
 with ESMTP id D-pSVMLsj7iU for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>;
 Tue, 23 May 2023 20:15:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.guxx.net (smtp.guxx.net [IPv6:2a01:4f8:a0:322c::25:42])
 by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAE67C14E513
 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 May 2023 20:15:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [100.64.0.1] (p54b8a8df.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.184.168.223])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by nyx.guxx.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AC5545F406C7;
 Wed, 24 May 2023 03:15:03 +0000 (UTC)
From: Ralf Weber <dns@fl1ger.de>
To: Tommy Pauly <tpauly=40apple.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: Dan Wing <danwing@gmail.com>, DNSOP WG <dnsop@ietf.org>
Date: Wed, 24 May 2023 05:14:52 +0200
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.14r5964)
Message-ID: <1FC6E5DE-2E5E-4A1A-A65D-4369108293C5@fl1ger.de>
In-Reply-To: <3255E1FA-0864-4BA6-A131-B478938714AE@apple.com>
References: <1BE5004E-B64D-407D-80F5-EB25D7BB671C@apple.com>
 <4A22932F-1980-438E-9B6A-176B82CECE50@isc.org>
 <A474412D-191B-48BD-8FC4-E07578E9C487@apple.com>
 <A79A4C21-43FD-4CC1-91C8-73F0F1C4BF28@gmail.com>
 <3255E1FA-0864-4BA6-A131-B478938714AE@apple.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/wpvrgSqJkQWHsX_a6FH3WduP0Aw>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Incompatibility with indicating client support for EDE
 (draft-ietf-dnsop-structured-dns-error)
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsop>,
 <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dnsop/>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>,
 <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 May 2023 03:15:09 -0000

Moin!

On 23 May 2023, at 22:18, Tommy Pauly wrote:

> Using length=3D2 and INFO-CODE=3D0 sounds fine to me.
>
> For the dependency on draft-ietf-add-resolver-info, I don't think we ne=
ed to impose that dependency. I'd much prefer to allow clients to look at=
 that optionally, but still be able to include the hint and use the extra=
 text if it parses correctly.

I agree with Tommy here. It is a nice to have (MAY/SHOULD) rather than a =
=E2=80=9CMUST=E2=80=9D as it currently is stated in the draft.

So long
-Ralf
=E2=80=94=E2=80=94-
Ralf Weber