Subject: Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-extended-error-10.txt

From: Wes Hardaker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2019 16:36:02 -0700

Viktor Dukhovni <[email-masked]> writes:

> > On Sep 30, 2019, at 7:06 PM, Wes Hardaker <[email-masked]> wrote:
> > 
> >> Which raises another question: Can an OPT RR legitimately carry more
> >> than one EDE option, and thereby communicate multiple errors?  Such as
> >> perhaps the above hypothetical with some RRSIGs expired, and some not
> >> yet vlid.
> > 
> > Yes, the draft discusses including multiple EDE reports.
> 
> I appears that text discussing the possibility of multiple EDE values
> present in earlier drafts may have been inadvertently removed in -07.
> I think such text should be restored, making it clear that the OPT
> record may contain multiple pertinent EDE values.

Good catch.  That notion did get removed by accident.

How does this sound:

      Senders MAY include more than one EDE option and receivers MUST be
      able to accept (but not necessarily process or act on) multiple
      EDE options in a DNS message.

-- 
Wes Hardaker
USC/ISI

---

From: Viktor Dukhovni <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2019 20:02:45 -0400

>       EDE options in a DNS message.

No objections from me.

-- 
	Viktor.