On 21. 11. 19 9:49, Wes Hardaker wrote: > Wes Hardaker <[email protected]> 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 _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
