Alex, On Fri, 06 Nov 2015 10:43:10 +1300 Alex Mayrhofer <[email protected]> wrote: > - First point: the keywords here are 'if a Responder detects'... > Which means that if it's unaware of the option or elects to not check > it, it doesn't need to respond with a FORMERR. But if it does check > the option, it MUST respond with an formerr.
This might have been your intent, but I read it the same as Ashu did. Further, I don't think there is any possible benefit for this check. The most likely result is going to be that implementors will read this and think that they need code in there to confirm that all bytes are 0. I feel pretty strongly that this text should be left out. Cheers, -- Shane _______________________________________________ dns-privacy mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
