On Thu, 19 Feb 2026 at 03:11, Vladimír Čunát <vladimir.cunat=2Bietf= [email protected]> wrote:
> Hello, reading through the draft again: > > If the EXTRA-TEXT field does not conform to the I-JSON requirements > [RFC7493], the client MUST treat the data as invalid and MUST NOT process > it according to this specification. > > > I wonder if these hard requirements are a bit impractical. Do the > JSON-parsing libraries commonly expose options which detect *exact* > conformance to that RFC? > > Also my reading of the RFC7493 gives me vibes of primarily being meant for > JSON producers (to voluntarily restrict to outputs which are more > interoperable), less for JSON parsers to reject more inputs. > > I know I'm a bit late, and I'm not much on client side of EDE myself, > so... no hard feelings if this remains. Also, maybe I've missed a message > explaining the reasons for this; I'm sure I haven't read all of them about > this draft. > Thanks for raising the issue. I agree JSON-parsing libraries do not provide conformance checks with RFC7493. I will fix the text as follows: The EXTRA-TEXT field MUST be an I-JSON message [RFC7493]. If the client fails to parse the field as valid JSON, it MUST treat the data as invalid and MUST NOT process it according to this specification. Cheers, -Tiru --Vladimir | knot-resolver.cz > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
