Hi Petr On Mon, Jul 13, 2026 at 04:20:27PM +0200, Petr Špaček wrote: > On 17. 06. 26 12:47, Joe Abley wrote: > > Babak, Sebastiaan and I put pen to paper and came up with the following: > > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-farrokhi-dnsop-ede-nta/ > > > > https://github.com/farrokhi/id-ede-nta (working copy) > > Good idea! > > In section 2: > > This EDE is intended for use in DNS responses sent by a DNS resolver with a > > configured NTA and SHOULD NOT be included in other responses. For example, > > a DNS response sent by an authoritative-only DNS server, which does not > > perform validation and hence has no obvious use for an NTA, SHOULD NOT > > include this EDE. > > Why not MUST NOT? > > I think an occurrence of SHOULD NOT should (see what I did there) have an > explanation under what conditions it can be violated, and I can't think of > any. > > > Personally I think machine parseable EXTRA-TEXT would be a good idea. > Something like > {"d": "example.com", "e": "2026-07-30T00:00:00Z"} > or so.
If the data is going to be structured, use of a separate EDNS option
with name and expiry timestamp fields would be better.
Mukund
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
