> > in responses where there client didn't even use EDNS. 6891 permits > > this, > > RFC6891 explicitly forbids this with a MUST NOT. Ugh, you know, this is exactly what I told you in the hall yesterday but then I actually went and looked when I was writing my last reply. I wanted to emphasize again, "see, here's one type of response that shouldn't get this done to it, for a request that didn't include EDNS at all!" But then I looked at 6891 and thought, "huh, I was wrong about it not being allowed." Now how did that happen? Well because it says MAY up in 6891 6.1.1 on page 6 but then doesn't get around to saying MUST NOT until six pages later in section 7. That's not ideal, but water long under the bridge. Ugh. So, like, maybe you could emphasize that it should not be added in response to non-EDNS requests per 6891. I'm still not a fan of saying just a bare "responses" without giving any indication of what sorts of responses would be expected to have it and which wouldn't. I don't think it has to be a hard specification of allowed/not allowed, even just further description recognizing that "responses" is broadly scoped and nothing is off the table (other than the no-EDNS case...) But if that's just me and I'm shouting at the sea, so be it. -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
