Ray Bellis wrote: ....
FWIW, I really wish in retrospect that EDNS(0) had defined the extra rcode bits as being for a _sub-type_ of the primary RCODE, i.e. SERVFAIL is always "2" in those four bits in the main header, with the extended field in the EDNS response allowing for more detail (c.f. this draft). Unfortunately with the newer RCODEs just being assigned contigiously from 16 onwards that's no longer possible :(
it was never possible -- we needed more rcodes, even though we now know we also need more detail on existing rcodes.
-- P Vixie _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
