[DNSOP] EDNS reply option to list unsupported options from query

Mukund Sivaraman <muks@isc.org> Mon, 28 September 2015 17:03 UTC

Return-Path: <muks@isc.org>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A11B1ACECB for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Sep 2015 10:03:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.235
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.235 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fmvyhKsw3KD2 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Sep 2015 10:03:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.banu.com (mail.banu.com [IPv6:2a01:4f8:140:644b::225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BA091ACEC6 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 28 Sep 2015 10:03:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from jurassic.l0.malgudi.org (unknown [117.215.83.26]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.banu.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id F0B492BA0B6F; Mon, 28 Sep 2015 17:03:46 +0000 (GMT)
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2015 22:33:42 +0530
From: Mukund Sivaraman <muks@isc.org>
To: dnsop@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20150928170341.GA23119@jurassic.l0.malgudi.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="mP3DRpeJDSE+ciuQ"
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/x2pGz2ZiLrqvyNnWZoaZdSGsQbU>
Subject: [DNSOP] EDNS reply option to list unsupported options from query
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Mon, 28 Sep 2015 17:03:51 -0000

Hi everyone

RFC6891 says this:

>   Any OPTION-CODE values not understood by a responder or requestor
>   MUST be ignored.  Specifications of such options might wish to
>   include some kind of signaled acknowledgement.  For example, an
>   option specification might say that if a responder sees and supports
>   option XYZ, it MUST include option XYZ in its response.

There is no generic way for a client to know that an option was not
handled at the server side. This is sometimes a problem when introducing
new options - while option specifications typically implement some sort
of reply signalling, it's not always the case where the client can know
with a missing option if it was not included because of lack of support,
or due to some other cause.

Is it worth introducing a reply EDNS option whose OPTION-DATA contains a
list of all the 16-bit OPTION-CODEs that were ignored from the query
message, and make it a MUST requirement?

		Mukund