Hi Pieter,
Dne 24. 11. 22 v 11:41 Pieter Lexis napsal(a):
I wonder if it should update RFC 6891 and all related OPTION RFCs as
well.
I'm not sure as well.
I also wonder if it could make sense to add guidance on how to choose
the correct presentation format for newly drafted EDNS options so
Hi Libor and Tom,
Thank you for submitting the draft. The first step is to receive
feedback from the WG on the mailing list and possibly with a
presentation of the draft during a DNSOP WG meeting.
If there is sufficient interest from the WG, the DNSOP chairs will start
with a formal call
Hi Libor, Tom,
Thanks for this, I believe this will be a good extension to the EDNS
specification to help operators hunt down issues. I support its
adoption by the WG. Should the WG disagree, please submit it as an
individual submission.
On Wed, 2022-11-23 at 20:25 +0100, libor.peltan wrote:
>
Hi DNSOP,
we have prepared a specification document (see below), which fills a gap
that appears to be missing currently — The EDNS(0) textual and JSON format.
It also fixes a "specification bug" in an existing and related RFC.
We believe this draft is pretty much complete and have a first PoC
