Eric Orth <ericorth=40google....@dmarc.ietf.org> writes: > "Because long EXTRA-TEXT fields may trigger truncation, which is undesirable > given > the supplemental nature of EDE. Implementers and operators creating EDE > options SHOULD avoid > lengthy EXTRA-TEXT contents."
Thanks for pointing that out; it was indeed a failed edit at a different problem and has been fixed. > "As such, EDE content should be treated only as diagnostic information and > MUST NOT alter DNS > protocol processing." > > (Sorry for not getting back and responding further on this subject in > the previous thread.) And I'm sorry for delaying getting back to you about you getting back to me about me getting... anyway. FYI, at least two of the authors agree with you, as resolvers are already making decisions based on unauthenticated information (rcodes). But this has been heavily discussed (multiple times) in the WG and the conclusion was that EDE cannot alter processing, hence the strong language. So in the end we didn't change the text to soften it, as it would counter the decisions of the larger past discussions. -- Wes Hardaker USC/ISI _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
